On March 21, 1861, Alexander H. Stevens, Vice President of the newly-proclaimed Confederate States of America gave a speech in Savannah Georgia, in which he laid out what the new nation was about. The speech is known in history as The Cornerstone Speech for his extended discourse on what "the cornerstone" on which the Confederacy was fou…
On March 21, 1861, Alexander H. Stevens, Vice President of the newly-proclaimed Confederate States of America gave a speech in Savannah Georgia, in which he laid out what the new nation was about. The speech is known in history as The Cornerstone Speech for his extended discourse on what "the cornerstone" on which the Confederacy was founded was. (Take a guess) He also explained the economic system on which the Confederacy was founded, which is worth a read tonight, given the topic of HCR's post:
"This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.
"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.
"Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution."
Does this economic system sound familiar? Consider Republicans back in 2014 not wanting to spend "their states' dollars" on emergency aid to New York City after Hurricane Sandy. Consider just about every economic policy put forward by Republicans in the past 40 years. "Southernomics" IS "Republican Economics."
All that pontificating about not spending others’ resources - while every single one of those “self-funded” improvements in Georgia was actually made by enslaved persons!
It makes me think of my first day in UCL in London where you will find, outside the main library, a "mummified" statue of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), UCL's patron and founder. His greatest contribution to economics, politics and philosophy was the idea that "what distinguished right from wrong in Society, be it civil or economic society was the creation of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people".
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) followed on from Bentham espousing the theory of Utilitarianism governing the economic relations between individuals in society; the greatest utility to the greatest number carried the decision as to "right and wrong". Later in life he tended towards the end of the scale that limited the power of the individual and his freedom for the greater "utility" of the people.
However, he deemed that there were exceptions and expressed them in his work "On Liberty" (1859). This book addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. However, Mill is clear that his concern for liberty does not extend to all individuals and all societies. He states that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with Barbarians." And this is the only part that the Republicans have ever understood.
“exhaustively” is key word TC. Always felt that the longer one pontificates suggests an ability spin a lie into a comfortable truth. Long winded. Like Fox News.
No mention here of the second charter signed at the same time "The Charter of the Forest"! The people's charter, as it was popularly called, protected the rights of the people against their abuse by the King, the Barons and the Bourgeoisie and not just sorting out the relationship of those already in power.
Ahhh. That’s another thing. The slave owners viciously punished any attempts for the enslaved to learn to read and write. No chance of them writing a charter.
The Barons were no happier with restrictions placed on their rapacity and abuse of "their" peasants who were often little better than slaves and sought to defend their 'Commons" rights from privatization. Often this was all that kept them alive.
And then in the 18th Century, with the "Enclosure movement" it was said that "The man who stole a goose from the commons was transported to America, while the man who stole the commons from the goose was transported to Parliament."
On March 21, 1861, Alexander H. Stevens, Vice President of the newly-proclaimed Confederate States of America gave a speech in Savannah Georgia, in which he laid out what the new nation was about. The speech is known in history as The Cornerstone Speech for his extended discourse on what "the cornerstone" on which the Confederacy was founded was. (Take a guess) He also explained the economic system on which the Confederacy was founded, which is worth a read tonight, given the topic of HCR's post:
"This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.
"Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.
"Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution."
Does this economic system sound familiar? Consider Republicans back in 2014 not wanting to spend "their states' dollars" on emergency aid to New York City after Hurricane Sandy. Consider just about every economic policy put forward by Republicans in the past 40 years. "Southernomics" IS "Republican Economics."
All that pontificating about not spending others’ resources - while every single one of those “self-funded” improvements in Georgia was actually made by enslaved persons!
It makes me think of my first day in UCL in London where you will find, outside the main library, a "mummified" statue of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), UCL's patron and founder. His greatest contribution to economics, politics and philosophy was the idea that "what distinguished right from wrong in Society, be it civil or economic society was the creation of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people".
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) followed on from Bentham espousing the theory of Utilitarianism governing the economic relations between individuals in society; the greatest utility to the greatest number carried the decision as to "right and wrong". Later in life he tended towards the end of the scale that limited the power of the individual and his freedom for the greater "utility" of the people.
However, he deemed that there were exceptions and expressed them in his work "On Liberty" (1859). This book addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. However, Mill is clear that his concern for liberty does not extend to all individuals and all societies. He states that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with Barbarians." And this is the only part that the Republicans have ever understood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham
Read the whole thing here - he definitely answers the question, exhaustively, about what the whole "rebellion" was all about.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
“exhaustively” is key word TC. Always felt that the longer one pontificates suggests an ability spin a lie into a comfortable truth. Long winded. Like Fox News.
True dat!
No mention here of the second charter signed at the same time "The Charter of the Forest"! The people's charter, as it was popularly called, protected the rights of the people against their abuse by the King, the Barons and the Bourgeoisie and not just sorting out the relationship of those already in power.
Ahhh. That’s another thing. The slave owners viciously punished any attempts for the enslaved to learn to read and write. No chance of them writing a charter.
The Barons were no happier with restrictions placed on their rapacity and abuse of "their" peasants who were often little better than slaves and sought to defend their 'Commons" rights from privatization. Often this was all that kept them alive.
And then in the 18th Century, with the "Enclosure movement" it was said that "The man who stole a goose from the commons was transported to America, while the man who stole the commons from the goose was transported to Parliament."