Yankee Go Home

Have you ever learned the real meaning of a word, as opposed to the slang, and decided that you'll be more careful in using it again? 

That is  how I feel about the word "Yankee".  Learning the history and meaning of the word  has made me more cautious in using it.  Oh, I know we use it it jokingly.  In college it was used to divide teams for Thanksgiving activities and look at the Gatlinburg show Dixie Stampede-just harmless fun.  At the same time, I am sorry that we have lost the full force of the meaning because it is helpful in understanding the  political conflicts early in the history of our nation.

"Yankee" or Jan-Kees is dutch in origin and was used by settlers in New York in reference to New Englanders.  It grew to mean a specific type of northerner; one who was loud, verbally aggressive, arrogant without reason, self-righteous, hypocritical, unfriendly, condescending, intolerant, greedy, and believing they were God's chosen people and therefore morally superior.  Because they thought this,  they thought they had the right to compel others to do as they did. Colonial  Massachusetts's law bears witness to this attitude. 

As more Representatives with a Yankee attitude gained federal power, Southerners felt more and more oppressed.  As stated in the previous post, Northerners transferred their war debt onto Southerners.  After the Revolution they wanted the fishing subsidies that they had received from the British government to continue.  Under John Adams they passed the Sedition Law which imprisoned anyone who spoke against the federal government.  This was a typical double standard.  Those laws expired when Adams left office and Federalists were then quick to criticize  and lie about Jefferson. 

The War of 1812 was started to protect American seamen-mostly New Englanders, yet New England refused to send troops and joined together in Connecticut to discuss secession.  Even though slaves were no longer allowed to be brought into America, Yankee businessmen were the primary outfitters of slave ships and would transfer human cargo from Africa to the Caribbean and South America. In fact, Northerners were running slave ships well into the War between the States.   High tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from competition.   Most Southerners felt that the wealth of the north was built at the expense of the south...for they benefited least and suffered most by government policy-so much for general welfare.

Southerners also resented the arrogant attitude that Northerners had regarding emancipation.  Northerners had not freed their slaves.  When it was no longer financially expedient for them to own slaves, they sold them south.  Yet Northerners demanded that Southerners free their slaves and  would not listen to Southern concerns regarding slaves (more about that in a later post).

The Tariff of Abomination in 1823 under Andrew Jackson was the last straw.  This tariff imposed a tax of 50% on imported goods and sparked a showdown in Congress that nearly split the nation in the mid 1820's.  This was a great burden to Southerners because they manufactured very little-they were an agrarian society. They bought much of their goods from Europe.   Northern manufacturers could raise the price of their goods to match the price of imported goods and attempt to corner the market.   A compromise was reached and the fire of conflict smoldered, but when  Abraham Lincoln was elected he promised to send troops into states that refused to enforce tariffs.  This left Southerners with little choice but to pull out of the Union, an action that many did not favor but felt forced into in order to protect their freedom.  Many Southerners referred to the War between the States as the Second American War for Independence.

Our country is now under the full force of Yankee style politics-the current  Republican field is over flowing with them.  The government constantly works to "save" us from... you name it, while lining the pockets of favored businesses. The question is when are we going to say enough is enough.  There is a difference between activity that God calls sin and activity that is criminal.  He treats them differently.  So should we.  We can't take our standards and force them onto others, nor should we be pressured into keeping the standards of others.  Besides, attempting to regulate behavior leads to tyranny.  For example, I don't believe in public education, yet I'm forced to pay for the education of other people's children.  I don't think I should have to.  Prohibition didn't work and I personally don't think that the "war on drugs" has either.  Besides, at some point a law is going to tread into an area that touches too close to home. For example, gluttony is a sin. What if it was made illegal -that isn't too far of a stretch, we have food police. How would you react to being fined or having to spend time in jail because you ate too much or were over weight? Just a thought.

Some areas just require  persuasion-along with patience, long suffering and close attention to the beams residing in our own eyes. 

Interesting links
A feature by John Stossel regarding "illegal" activities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ&feature=youtu.be

A great post on the power of persuasion and love by Jasmine Baucham
http://allshehastosay.blogspot.com/2012/01/people-like-me.html#more
Bibliography

Farrow, Anne:Lang, Joel; Frank, Jenifer; Complicity: How the
      North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery; 
      New York:Ballantine Books, 2006

by Nikki and Audrey

Opposing Philosophies: Hamiltonianism vs. Jeffersonianism

The American colonies had spent seven years freeing themselves from the oppression of British rule.  In effect they had seceded from the British empire.  The looming question was how would they rule themselves?

Initially the colonies had allied around the Articles of Confederation.  Protecting state sovereignty and freedom was of the utmost importance.  Under this document congress had very limited power.  It could:
    1) make war or peace and set quotas of men and money for a
        national army.
    2) make treaties and alliances
    3) decide interstate disputes, limit state boundaries and admit
         new states
    4) borrow and regulate standards of coinage and weights and
        measures
    5) establish post offices

Hamilton disliked the Articles of Confederation.  He lamented that there was no federal judiciary, no executive, no taxing power and no direct power over the individual citizen.  This confederation of states was in reality an alliance of 13 individual republics.  He did not trust the general populace and thought that states were too concerned with their own interests and overlooked the "common good".  More than that, he realized the wealth and power to be obtained by embracing mercantilistic economic policies.  Hamilton was not the only one who saw weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation and a convention was called to address these concerns. 

Hamilton idealized the British form of government. As a delegate for New York in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he purposed a government that closely mimicked the British government. He wanted an elected but permanent President (King) and Senate (House of Lords) qualifying that the occupants of these offices could be recalled for bad behavior.  He also wanted a House (House of Commons) that was democratically elected every three years.  His government would also include state governors that were appointed by the central government (like the governors that had been appointed to the colonies).  The federal government would be able to override any state law it felt was unconstitutional or against national laws and would be able to levy tax.  Of course, it also included a central bank. 

 In all fairness, Hamilton was not the only one who wrestled with the idea of a king and on what political philosophy to pattern a federal government-it was, after-all, the purpose of the convention.  There were others that wanted a strong central government-John Adams and George Washington to name a few; but the revolution had been fought to free themselves from the British system and they understood that the general populace would not support anything so closely related.

The opposing philosophy was that of  State Rights or State Sovereignty.   In contrast, these men felt that power consolidated in the hands of a few would lead to corruption. They wanted to avoid what the colonies had experienced under British rule and felt the best way to overcome it was to spread power among many and have strong checks on those in power.  Not only that, but laws and regulations written on a local or state level would more accurately solve problems and express the will of the people.  A federal or central government would help resolve conflict between states and see to the overall safety from outside forces.

The greatest opposition come from the anti-federalists. They saw great fatal in the constitution and feared that the general welfare clause would open the door to a strong central government and the ultimate oppression of the citizens

Thomas Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time of the convention. When he learned of the document he supported it with the stipulation that it needed a Bill of Rights.  Most citizens agreed with Jefferson and felt that the Constitution was a fair compromise.

On the surface it appeared that Hamilton had been persuaded.  Deep down that wasn't the case.  As the Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington he successfully laid a foundation to expand the powers granted to the federal government.  As the anti-federalists feared,  Hamilton relied heavily on the idea of the "common good" (general welfare clause) and used it, as well as the idea of implied powers,  in support of  more federal power.

In the first session of congress Hamilton successfully persuaded congress to consolidate all debt from the revolution in the hands of the federal government as well as accumulating more for projects.  An important point to note is that many southern states had already paid down much of their debt from the war.  So in effect they paid their debt as well as much of the northern debt.  This would become a reoccurring pattern and a thorn in the side of southern states. With debt came a national bank and a push for protective tariffs for manufacturers.  None of these activities were specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Jefferson felt that they had been tricked and that the constitution, as written, had not been given a fair chance to work.   The country began to divide and the philosophical differences fell along geographical divides as well.  The strongest support for state sovereignty and a decentralized government being in the South and a strong centralized view held in the North.

As I will point out in a later post, the North held a greater population and the South often felt that they were not fully represented in Congress and therefore  paid for more than their share for northern projects and business success.  Southern secession grew from a disenfranchised populace.

Bibliography

Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Press, 2004

Cunningham Jr., Noble E.  Jefferson vs Hamilton:Confrontations
     That Shaped a Nation. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000

DiLorenzo, Thomas J.  Hamilton's Curse.  New York: Three Rivers
      Press, 2009

written by Nikki             .

Defending Jane Austen

Unknown artist- Woman Writing a Letter

Some people dismiss Jane Austen as a satirist who only made fun of her society.  Others reject her work as romance novels and complain that she gives a starry-eyed view of men, love, and marriage.  Jane Austen may also be disregarded because she doesn't specifically mention God moving and working in her characters.   At a superficial glance, these things are mostly true; but deeper reflection will find that within the pages of Jane Austen's books are many Godly lessons, illustrated by both positive and negative examples.  She weaves these lessons into the plot of her stories in such a believable manner that you come away  both encouraged and challenged.  This is in stark contrast with popular Christian fiction found in today's bookstores where God is talked about excessively but  the actions and dialogue of the characters reveal an un-Biblical worldview. 

In my personal favorite, Sense and Sensibility, the central concept  is the  response to unpleasant circumstance.  Elinor exemplifies  II Corinthians 10:5b, " ... and bringing into captivity every though to the obedience of Christ",  when she responds by keeping her emotions in check, her thoughts captive, and trusting in God when her circumstance seem to forecast complete unhappiness.  In doing this Elinor also spares her mother and sisters a lot of unnecessary anxiety on her behalf.  

While at first Marianne is the antithesis of her sister (Elinor struggles to overcome, Marianne wallows), the sanctification process is evident in her life. By the end of the story she not only sees the necessity of keeping her emotions in check but also succeeds at it.  Marianne comes to have a deeper appreciation and love for Elinor after watching her struggle to do what she knows is right.

In Mansfield Park, there is the idea of perseverance through trial.  Whether the trial is being pursed by a rake who no one else sees as a rake because he has money, being reminded over and over again of the kindness of your uncle in taking you in, or watching the man you love throw his affections away on a worthless woman, Fanny is loyal to principles no matter what and patient to a fault.  Even when her cousin, who she happens to be in love with, wants her to do something that goes against her conscience, she is adamant in her refusals.  Fanny is also amazing about giving people the benefit of the doubt even when they really don't deserve it. 

Not all of Jane Austen's stories are positive examples.  In Northanger Abby, she uses a young and naive Catherine Morland to expound on the foolishness of reading rubbish.  While Austen specifically points out how the reading of some  romantic novels has the potential to fill  young minds such as  Catherine's with ridiculous notions, like the idea that her future father-in-law murdered his wife, the principle is still there.  Catherine read absent mindedly.  She didn't exercise discernment.  She simply took it all in and her character was corrupted. In the end she had to endure a very embarrassing episode to teach her this lesson.

This doesn't mean that Marx, Darwin, or Hitler should never be read. It means that we shouldn't be saturated in it . Reading these authors is beneficial in order to understand the wrong and be able to combat it, but we should be engaged in whatever we read-discerning good and evil.

Jane Austen is one of the best female writers in the English language.  She had amazing insight into human strengths and weaknesses.  To me her stories present a challenge to become better or shine  a gentle light on my weakness so that it is easy to want to change.  Her characters walk beside the reader with an exalting example of how to glorify God through being patient, loyal, persevering through trials, having a proper response to unpleasant circumstances, the evils of reading trash,  treating people kindly no matter what, the list goes on and on.  It all depends on you and where you are at in your walk.   

So, do you like Jane Austen? Why or why not?  If you do, which one of her stories are your favorite and why?

Why Slavery was a Symptom and not a Cause

" I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probable forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as _________, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

By 21st Century standards that is a very racist remark. I agree whole heartily. I would never vote for a person who said that. The trouble is that statement was made by Abraham Lincoln in the 1858 Ottawa, Illinois debate. Don't believe me? Check it out. http://lincoln-douglasdebates.weebly.com/transcripts.html. The first link on the website is for the Ottawa debate and you will find the quote on page 8 of the transcript. Better yet, read the whole transcript. It will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. This was a public debate given in Illinois-a northern, "free" state.

Once president, Lincoln went on to say that his purpose for the war was to preserve the union, not free slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order that went into effect in January of 1863 (Why did he wait so long?) and only freed slaves in states still fighting against the North. It was a political move.

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..."

Read it yourself. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

What this shows is that all across America a way of thinking prevailed that was wrong. And it wasn't just against blacks. Many white Americans felt superior to Indians and Asians as well. Look at how these ethnicities were treated. Consider also how factory workers were treated. It reveals a way of thinking that was steeped in evolution. Ken Ham does an excellent job addressing this issue in Darwin's Plantation: Examining Evolution's Racist Roots. One Blood, One Race, by the same author, is also good.

Because the root cause of the problem of slavery was not addressed, blacks (and other races) continued to be oppressed after the war. The history of slavery is complex. I have more questions than answers and, therefore, much more to learn on the subject; but I do feel confident saying that slavery was not the cause of the war.

Not only that, but it also shows that today we have been taught the wrong cause of the war.   Slavery, along with tariffs and state sovereignty were real issues, but at the root was the role and purpose of government. Realizing this has made me much more interested in political philosophy.

written by Audrey & Nikki

January-March 1861: Secession

Most people today attribute the cause of the Civil War to slavery.  Some brush off the conflict to Yankee arrogance and meddling.   In reality, those issues were just symptoms of a much more serious problem.

 






          "The history of the United States, as yet unwritten, will show
           the causes of the "Civil War" to have been in existence during
           the Colonial era, and to have cropped out into full view in the
           debates of the several State assemblies on the adoption of the
           Federal Constitution...."
                  ~Richard Taylor [son of President Zachary Taylor] 
                         "Destruction and Reconstruction" (p. 1) published in 1877


The conflict had been brewing for decades.  Shortly after the close of the Revolutionary War, each colony sent  delegates to Philadelphia for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation; but in the end the convention drafted a whole new governing document.  When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, each state assembly gathered to debate the document and decide if they would voluntarily bind themselves to it.  Many States, like Virginia and Rhode Island, were hesitant to ratify the Constitution.

Their primary concern? 

Preserving the sovereignty of their state. 

In response to the hesitation, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay penned The Federalist Papers.  It was an attempt to put to rest any qualms the states had.  Unfortunately, that wasn't the end of the issue and the two opposing philosophies of government-traditionally referred to as Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian- continued to battle over the ensuing decades.

The two philosophies are really opposites.  Simply put, the Hamiltonian view embraces a highly centralized government. The central government controls society through regulation and government sponsored projects. This would necessitate a national debt (for all the projects the government engaged in) and economic mercantilism. This system of economics needed a central bank and a strong relationship between the government and favored businesses.  This was the political view of most northerners.

 The Jeffersonian view of government wants the government decentralized.  They believe that the federal government should only engage in those activities specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the States are sovereign.  That is they  have the right to overrule to federal government.  The idea is that power is spread across a large number of people, not centrally located in a few or, even worse, one person or office where corruption is easily achieved.  This was the political view held by most southerners.


The society of 1860 was very familiar with the concept of State sovereignty.  Each colony had been individually represented in the Declaration of Independence; and the Treaty of Paris, which closed the Revolutionary War, recognized each state's sovereignty
The Constitution initially set up a government that preserved state sovereignty. The people of the various states were represented in the House of Representatives and each State government was represented in the Senate.  This made each Senator accountable to his state and was expected to work in the interest of the state or suffer being recalled.  It also helped to insure that the House of Representatives could not try to pass pork bills to bring home " stuff" to their states to " bribe " people into re-electing them because the senators- on behalf of their state government- would oppose such bills. Unfortunately, the states lost their voice in government when this was all changed by the passing of the  Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

An example of state sovereignty would be when Massachusetts, operating as a sovereign state,  refused to send their national guard to assist in the War of 1812-and no one could make them!   A few years later, still operating as a sovereign state, Massachusetts and other New England states held the Hartford Convention and  threatened to pull out of the Union (secession)  in response to Jefferson's embargo, Madison's Enforcement Act, and the War of 1812. 

Politics wasn't the only difference between North and South...


Articles of Interest
Treaty of Paris:
note article 1 http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html
Jefferson's Embargo:
 http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/embargo-1807
Hartford Convention:
 http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ct1763_1818/hartconv.htm
Ratification Votes:
 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview.html
 Very interesting chart and interactive maps as well as original documentation
written by Nikki and Audrey