Brion McClanahan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 222 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Professor McClanahan & Article I Section 10 #20534

    The States (and the people thereof) can secede because they acceded to the Union.
    For a nice discussion of this point at length, see Albert Taylor Bledsoe’s defense of secession in “Is Davis a Traitor?” And, it just so happens that Mike Church and I are putting together an edited version of that book. I don’t have a release date, but it will be soon.

    in reply to: Indentured Servitude #15136

    Let me add that many of the participants in Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 were former indentured servants who were unhappy with the political situation in VA, as Kevin suggested, and while they were not promised land, they could squat on it, and many did.

    And, while not an indentured servant in the VA model, Benjamin Franklin was indentured to his brother. He later broke those indentures and ran away to Philadelphia.

    in reply to: Jeffrey Hummel's book on the American civil war #15147

    I agree with Kevin’s assessment. Another worthwhile book on the economic ramifications of the War is Richard Bensel’s “Yankee Leviathan.”

    in reply to: Indentured Servitude #15134

    Many were willing to become indentured servants because it offered the possibility of land and by default freedom once they were released from their indentures. Obviously, if they were willing to become an indentured servant that life was preferable to the conditions they had in England. Life was not easy, and many found it difficult to satisfy their indentures, and of course once the need for labor exceeded the ability for landowners to entice indentured servants, many turned to African slavery to fill the void. Still, the American frontier was filled with those who had earned their freedom through indentured servitude.

    in reply to: The Nullification Crisis #15119

    South Carolina claimed the Tariff of 1828 and subsequent tariff of 1832 were unconstitutional because they violated the premise that taxes should benefit the “general welfare” of the Union as a whole (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1). They were clearly intended to enrich certain interests while unnecessarily burdening the South. Revenue tariffs were not and are not unconstitutional, but protective measures were and are because they are a form of targeted welfare and thus do not benefit and burden all states equally.

    in reply to: Empire of Liberty #15115

    Not in the least. Jefferson never wanted to spread “freedom across the globe.” He did use the phrase “empire of liberty,” but his conception included several confederacies in North America pledged to the principle of liberty, not beholden to some powerful centralized imperial state.

    Here you go:

    Slavery and the Civil War Revisited

    Also, here is a link to the material: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915097?seq=1

    in reply to: Civil War for a 4th grader #15107

    For a light read that is still fairly good for information, H.W. Crocker’s PIG to the Civil War is not bad. It might be a bit difficult for a 4th grader, but the PIG books are designed for a lower reading level.

    This is a great book on Lee, written for that level in 1898: http://books.google.com/books?id=UVtLAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+life+of+robert+e+lee+for+young+readers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uXMtUceNAYuw8AT92oHQDQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20life%20of%20robert%20e%20lee%20for%20young%20readers&f=false

    I am not sure what type of report he needs to do. If it is a simple book report, then the PIG book is out. The Lee book would be more appropriate, though old.

    She also wrote a similar book for Thomas J. Jackson, also good.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=KFpLAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Mary+Lynn+Williamson%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q3QtUYXWIIa68ASmj4DoAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    in reply to: The War Between the States #14799

    Southerners did not control Congress. Democrats (not all Southerners or sympathetic to tariff reduction) held a plurality but the Republicans and American Party members also had large blocks in the 1850s. Getting anything done on the tariff issue would have been difficult.

    in reply to: East India Company confusion #15104

    The British owned the East India Company. It was a state corporation, which is why the Parliament wanted to monopolize the tea trading using that company. The colonists were upset that the British were NOT taxing that tea and allowing only select merchants to sell it while all other tea was taxed. This is why many of the men of the founding generation warned against state corporations, like the Bank of the United States, and why they insisted that the Constitution did not give the central government the authority to charter such institutions (they were correct; this issue was even discussed in Phil in 1787 and was outright rejected by the delegates to the Convention).

    in reply to: Confederates and the draft #15101

    The Confederate Congress passed a conscription law in 1862 which many considered unconstitutional. How did they do it? They just did, at the recommendation of Pres. Davis and military leaders like Lee. Every man 18-35 was considered in the army unless they fit one of the “exemptions,” but the selective service act created to implement the law included so many exemptions that it became hard, at times, to raise troops. Yet on the other end of the spectrum, some areas were wiped clean of men. State officers were requested to enforce the system, but some States refused. As in the North, conscription was a messy business.

    in reply to: George Washington wounded or not? #15093

    No Washington was not wounded. I said he was shot four times, but I obviously neglected to clarify that these were misses, not flesh and bone hits. The bullets did pass through his coat, and by default, he did barely make it out of that battle alive.

    Barton is citing a parable about that battle, but Washington himself never mentioned it, neither did anyone else who participated that I can find. Another Barton embellishment I am afraid.

    Matt,

    I would have to do some research on this topic to say yes or no, but I would not be surprised.

    in reply to: Political parties in the last decades of the 1800s #15952

    The shift was the 1896 election. The “Silverite” progressives hijacked the Democrat Party with the nomination of WJ Bryan and the conservatives either supported the splinter NDP or the Republicans. The Republicans in fact attempted to persuade conservative Democrats to join them. That held for 1900 but in 1904 the conservative Democrats supported Alton Parker against he progressive TR. That was the last time the conservative Democrats had a candidate. Even W. Wilson was at one time a Cleveland man, though by 1908 he had become a progressive. So to make a long story short, the progressive hijacked both parties, though it was much easier for the progressive Republicans to do so.

    in reply to: 14th Amendment #15088

    I replied to this in the other forum.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 222 total)