Marc Liebman's Blog, page 2

Early Strides to End Slavery

Let’s start with the statement that slavery, in any form, is wrong. Full stop. Unfortunately, the U.S. fought the bloodiest war in its history to end the practice. Depending on who you believe, somewhere between 620,000 and 750,000 men or between 1.97 and 2.4% of the population of the North and South, were killed.

Suffice it to say, slavery was an accepted practice throughout the U.S. colonial world. It was legal in France and the U.K. as well as in other countries.

When the American Revolution ended, our Founding Fathers faced a dilemma. They had just fought for over eight years for independence and personal freedom. The concept of one man “owning” another was a conundrum for many of them, particularly those who owned plantations. For them, slavery was an economic necessity. Their wealth and income came from the agricultural products that their large farms produced and exported. This was the reality in which they lived.

Fast forward to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Slavery was an issue that the Founding Fathers set aside via a compromise made on August 25th, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention. In it, the delegates agreed that 20 years after the Constitution is ratified, Congress can pass legislation banning the importation of slaves. Had they tried to solve it then, the debate would have raged on for years and the Constitution we have today would never have been written, much less ratified.

However, the U.S. Constitution, there is what is known as Fugitive Slave Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 3) that gives a property owner the right to reclaim his property it has escaped to another state. The Constitution reads – No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Note that the word “slave” not appear here or anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. However, no method, criteria, or process is outlined on how this is to be enforced.

Oddly, the Fugitive Slave Clause follows the section that provides for extradition of criminals from one state to another. Reading documents about the discussion, this goes back to the issue of a slave being property, which again, goes against the precepts on which this country was founded.

In 1793, Southern legislators pushed the Fugitive Slave Act through Congress as a means to provide a legal basis for retaking possession of a slave who had fled. There were no restrictions or limits as to how long the slave would be considered a fugitive. Unfortunately, Washington didn’t veto it. However, in hindsight, a veto may have created chaos.

The next year, Congress began to take steps to limit slavery in the U.S. What follows is a very brief discussion of four pieces of legislation, all passed between 1794 and 1808 that started the process of ending slavery in these United States.

What is also interesting, but beyond the scope of this post, is that every one of them passed with the support of the Founding Fathers. Two Presidents – Washington and Jefferson – were slave owners and signed all four of these acts.

1794 – The Slave Trade Act – This law prohibited any U.S. citizen from participating in the slave trade either as a ship owner, ship crewman, or as a trader. It also prohibits U.S. citizens from being involved in any way in the slave trade in another country.

1797 – The Northwest Ordinance – A clause in this sweeping law prohibited slavery in any state north of the Ohio River. Ultimately, this would mean that slavery was prohibited in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The act would be used to prevent slavery from being practiced in future states.

1800 – Slave Trade Act – This act made it a criminal act for a U.S. citizen to either invest in or participate in the slave trade. It also increased the fines and penalties listed in the 1794 legislation.

1808 – Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves – This act strengthened the 1797 law and also prohibited slaves from being imported into the U.S.

The 1808 law, spurred on by both Madison and Jefferson, was fulfillment of a commitment they made in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention. It was signed on March 2nd, 1808, just before Jefferson left office.

Drawing by Edmund Ollier of a Slave Auction courtesy of Slavery Images.

The post Early Strides to End Slavery appeared first on Marc Liebman.

If Only Madison Had Known

The U.S.’ relations with the United Kingdom had been deteriorating ever since the French Revolutionary Wars broke out in 1792. The British government sided with the royalists who wanted to keep Louis XVI as the French ruler and suddenly, Europe was aflame. For the umpteenth time since 1066, Britain and France were at war.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, wanted to keep the U.S. neutral and out of the war. We declared our neutrality even though England was our largest customer by far. U.S. traders had customers and suppliers in France, The Dutch Republic, Prussia, Spain, and the kingdoms on the Italian peninsula.

There were a series of policy decisions made by the English government loosely lumped into a term called “Orders in Council.” These occur when the reigning monarch and the Privy Council, which consists of members of the House of Lords and House of Commons, advise the crown on matters of domestic and foreign policy.

Between 1792 and 1812, the Privy Council met dozens of times. Many of the decisions and handed down as Orders in Council restated England’s strategy of blockading France’s and Spanish ports when Spain sided with France. Other edicts were attempts to restrict any country trading with the U.K.’s enemies.

From an American perspective, it was the decrees issued on January 7th and November 11th, 1807, and April 26th, 1809, that irritated the U.S. the most.  For example, the Privy Council’s January and November 1807 rulings forbade English businessmen from trading with any country allied with France or that has declared itself neutral. They also required that any ships going to a port in Europe must stop in an English port and be inspected. Ships that did not do so would be seized, their cargo confiscated and, along with the ship, sold in Admiralty courts. The April 1809 order tightened the earlier restrictions.

Needless to say, American businessmen who had both suppliers and customers in almost every major port in Western Europe were furious. Jefferson tried to counter with the Embargo Act of 1807, but besides failing to force the British, who were still our largest trading partner to change its policies, the act caused the U.S. economy to contract by over 10%.

Add in the increasing numbers of American merchant seamen being impressed into the Royal Navy – it would eventually total 25,000+ and continued incitement by the British government of native Americans in the Northwest Territories to resist and attack U.S. settlers and one had the conditions that led to the War of 1812. It was a war which neither country wanted. Madison, rightly so, determined that U.S. sovereignty was at stake. Some historians contend what became the War of 1812 was really the U.S.’ Second War of Independence.

But, what if modern communications existed back in the spring of 1812? Could the War of 1812 have been avoided? The answer is most likely yes. Why? There was a sequence of events in England that, due to the time it took for news to travel across the Atlantic, were not known to Madison.

First, on May 12th, 1812, the British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval was assassinated. As a member of the Privy Council, Perceval would be considered a “hardliner,” and pushed for the draconian measures in the Orders in Council that irritated the U.S.

Second, his death meant that a new government had to be formed. It was led by Lord Liverpool.  On June 16th, 1812, two days before Madison asked Congress for a declaration of war, Lord Castlereagh, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, announced in Parliament that the Orders in Council that affected trade with the U.S. would be suspended.

Think about this… If just the telegraph cable between the U.S. and England had been laid, Madison would have known about the change within in hours. Or, if the Internet existed, probably within minutes. Given the U.S. lack or preparedness and its desire to declare as a last resort, had Madison known, he would never have asked for a declaration of war.

On June 23rd, 1812, Lord Liverpool announced that Parliament had repealed the Orders in Council affecting the U.S. It took, however, 43 days for the news to reach Washington D.C. and by then, the U.S. had declared war.

1909 illustration of the assassination of British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval by William Stanley Britteny

The post If Only Madison Had Known appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Immigration and the Ladder of U.S. Law

When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1787, one of their goals was to create a document to make the Federal government the “supreme” governing entity. Why?

Under the Articles of Confederation, the individual states had all the power. The central government, i.e., the Continental Congress, known after the signing of the Treaty of Paris as the Confederation Congress, could not raise taxes, regulate interstate commerce, establish a judiciary, or even insist that its Continental Dollars were the national currency and order the states to stop printing money. These were just some of the powers that the members of the Confederation Congress lacked.

Hence with writing Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers is very clear with the words This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In short, if there is a conflict between Federal law and any law written by a state, county, or municipal government, the Federal law determines the outcome.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the legislative branch the power To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. In other words, the House and Senate write the laws that govern immigration and naturalization law. Put another way, Congress writes all the laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, not the states, counties or cities.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 has the oath the President of the United States makes when he takes office. Each new president must state I (first name, last name) do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This clause gives the President the power to enforce the laws written by Congress. In Section 2, Clause 2, the Constitution, the President is given the sole power to conduct foreign policy.

Where this gets interesting and legally murky is when state and city governments declare themselves sanctuary cities and refuse to comply with Federal immigration laws and hinder the operations of Federal law enforcement agencies.

This clause is where the President gets to enforce the laws written by Congress. In Section 2, Clause 2, the Constitution gives the President the sole power to conduct foreign policy, i.e. make policy.

Where this gets interesting and legally murky is when state and city governments declare themselves sanctuary cities and refuse to comply with Federal immigration laws and hinder the operations of Federal law enforcement agencies.

While some may argue that prior to and during the Civil War, many northern cities offered sanctuary to slaves fleeing their masters through the Underground Railroad which began before the American Revolution. While on the surface this may appear to be equivalent, it is not. The context is entirely different. One, the slaves were in the country “legally,” even if they were brought to the U.S. against their will.

Two, the intent of the Lincoln and later the Johnson administrations was to make free slaves citizens through the Civil Rights Act of 1866. To ensure that it would be difficult to return to pre-Civil War laws about slavery, the 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868. Its creators wanted to ensure that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 could not be changed.

The question is are those cities and states who claim to be sanctuary cities violation of Federal law immigration laws? Are those government officials issuing orders not to comply with ICE opening themselves up to being prosecuted for obstruction of justice?

This issue will, more than likely, wind up in the Supreme Court of the U.S. The ladder of U.S. law strongly suggests that sanctuary cities/states are violating U.S. immigration law.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Federal government, then those cities and states must comply. If they don’t do so voluntarily, then we have a prima facie rebellion on our hands and a true threat to law and order that will rock the very foundation of our democracy.

Image is from a YouTube Video called the Ladder of the Laws – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmRbriVd0bY

The post Immigration and the Ladder of U.S. Law appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Democracies Are Not Perfect But They Work

The United States of America just celebrated its 249th birthday. That’s two and a half centuries. To put that in perspective, the U.S. is the second-oldest democracy in the world. The U.K. is the oldest if one assumes that it began after the English Civil War of 1642 to 1651.

We have the oldest, in force, governing document in the world, called the U.S. Constitution. It is such a remarkable document that there have been only 27 amendments. The first 10 – the Bill of Rights – were adopted in order to ensure the Constitution was ratified by the majority of the 13 original states.

In contrast, the lifespan of most dictatorships in akin in historical terms to the flame of a match, i.e., short lived. To wit, the supposed workers’ paradise called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was founded in 1922 after a bloody revolution and five-year civil war and collapsed in 1991. Why did it come apart?

Lots of reasons, but at the core, the Communist and/or socialist system of government in which bureaucrats plan and run the economy doesn’t work.

Then there was the Nazi Germany. It began in 1933 when the National Socialist Party under Adolf Hitler came to power and died in the ashes of the Second World War.

Which brings me to the three dictatorships that have been in the news lately. Let’s start with Russia.

If you are under any illusions that Putin was elected in free and open elections, forget them. He is an absolute dictator and has a ruthless FSB (son of the KGB, grandson of the NKVD, and great-grandson of the Cheka) and a small cadre of oligarchs who control the sinews of the Russian economy.

Thanks to a-3-day special military operation that is now in its fourth year, the Russian economy is beginning to totter, and Putin’s army has suffered about 1 million casualties so far. Many experts believe that unless Russia defeats Ukraine by the end of 2025, economic conditions inside Russia will lead to challenges to his power.

On the other side of the globe, there is Xi Jinping, who suddenly canceled his visit to the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China). This is a major deal because the PRC saw it as an opportunity to position itself as an alternative to the European Union, and NATO, the U.S., and Japan. Internally, Jinping is facing increasing resistance from his own military about his plans to invade Taiwan in his lifetime – Xi is 72. The PRC’s top-down, managed economy has many problems, and the government does not have the “economic tools” to solve its problems. Add in that the PRC’s economy is dependent on exports that will decline precipitously if it invades Taiwan. Xi is now facing challenges to his authority, policies, and power.

Then there is Iran. It is not a democracy, but a theocratic dictatorship. It has elections, but only those chosen by the Guardian Council (all of whom are clerics) can run for parliament. The Assembly of Experts, which advises the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is chosen by the Guardian Council. As a practical matter, one can only vote for candidates chosen by the Ayatollah and his advisors.

Iran’s foreign policy is in tatters thanks to its focus on developing nuclear weapons and being the world’s largest state sponsor or terrorism. What makes matters worse for Iran’s rulers is that its economy is in deep trouble. In a nation aswash in oil, there are shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel. So, where does Iran go from here?

What are the odds that in 2028, the next time the U.S. has a presidential election, Putin, Xi Jinping, and/or the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will still be in power?

The point of this post is that, while the U.S. has problems, our democracy is still vibrant. And the experiment in democracy that started back in 1775 along the road from Boston to Lexington and Concord, still works. So, ask yourself, would you rather be living in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, or Washington, D.C.?

1907 John Ward Dunsmore of Washington and Lafayette at Valley Forge.

The post Democracies Are Not Perfect But They Work appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Veteran’s Impact Show – Great Power Competition

LTGEN John Campbell and CAPT Marc Liebman appear on Jim Blythe’s Veteran’s Impact show to discuss the content and speakers that will appear in the July 27th, 2025 National Defense Briefing Series event – Great Power Competition – Russia, China, Iran and the Axis of Resistance.

The post Veteran’s Impact Show – Great Power Competition appeared first on Marc Liebman.

On Declaring War

Recently, there has been much ado about the U.S. air strike in Iran with several politicians claiming that it was an impeachable act or that the President needs to go to Congress to get a formal declaration of war before taking such action. Given these politicians feigned horror about the violation of the Constitution, let’s take a look at history.

A few facts are in order. According to the Senate’s archives, the United States Senate has issued a declaration of war 11 times. For the record, the U.S. declared war on Great Britain on June 17th, 1812, Mexico on May 12th, 1846, Spain on April 25th, 1898, Germany on April 4th, 1917, Austria-Hungary on December 7th, 1917, Japan on December 8th, 1941, Germany on December 11th, 1941, Italy the same day and then Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania on June 4th, 1942. That’s it, folks.

Even when fighting in the Civil War, Lincoln did not ask for a declaration of war against the Confederacy in what turned out to be the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Nor did we (or the United Nations) declare war against North Korea in 1950. Nor did we declare war when Eisenhower and Kennedy committed U.S. forces to aid South Vietnam.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973, and which included something called the Authorization to Use Military Force. Since this law was passed, there has been a long list of military actions in which U.S. men and women were committed to combat without a declaration of war.

Just a few are the invasions of Haiti and Grenada, Operation El Dorado Canyon in which U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft bombed Libya. Included in the list are Operations Desert Shield and Storm, the bombing of Libya to help topple Qaddaffi, Operation Praying Mantis during which the U.S. destroyed most of the Iranian Navy in 1988. More recently, the list includes U.S. airstrikes in Syria and special forces raids to kill ISIS leaders. The list in this post is far from complete, but every President – Democrat or Republican – has sent U.S. military forces into combat without going to Congress to get a formal declaration of war.

The original War Powers Act requires the President to go to Congress within 48 hours of U.S. forces going into action and limits the use of U.S. forces for 60 days without Congressional approval. It does not require him or her to ask for a declaration of war but does require the President to come to Congress, explain why, and ultimately ask for money to fund the combat.

The War Powers Act has been modified several times since 1973, and the last time was in 2001 to give President Bush (and future presidents) more latitude to use U.S. forces to combat terrorism.

However, if you think this is a new, phenomenon, think again. Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison all committed U.S. forces to combat without a declaration of war. To wit, Washington sent the army to fight Native Americans in the Second Cherokee-Indian War and the Northwest Indian War. Adam’s turned the U.S. Navy loose on French privateers and the French Navy in the Quasi-War of 1798 – 1800. Then, Jefferson committed the U.S. Navy and Marines to the Mediterranean in 1803 to fight the Barbary Pirates. Between 1806 and 1810, Jefferson and his successor Madison sent the U.S. Navy into the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi Delta to kill and capture privateers operating under French and Spanish flags as well as pirates.

The point of this post is simply this. Ever since the earliest days of this nation, our presidents have committed our military to combat without a declaration of war.

Statements by some members of Congress claiming the air strike in Iran required a declaration of war show their lack of understanding of U.S. history and law. Their statements assume we the people will take their statements as “fact.”  We the people are not stupid nor ignorant. Many of us know our history, and politicians who make these statements show their ignorance.

Chart is from the U.S. Senate archives showing the list of declarations of war.

The post On Declaring War appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Criminals Immigrated as Indentured Servants

No matter where one wants to start, from the early days of the Thirteen Colonies to the day this blog was posted, immigration policy has been a U.S. political issue. The pace or number or origin of immigrants has changed over time, but the reasons – desire for religion and personal freedom, the opportunity to own land, escape from oppressive poverty, and to ensure one’s children have a chance for a better life than their parents – haven’t.

From the earliest days of our country, U.S. immigration policy has been shaped by internal events – the need for more people to move and settle the West – and those outside the U.S., such as the Napoleonic Wars, famine in Ireland, and poverty in what is now known as Eastern Europe.

In 1700, British and colonial documents estimate that the total population of the 13 Colonies, including slaves, according to a University of California-Davies study was 250,888. By 1710, we were up 32.2% to 331,771, and in 1720, the number jumped 40.5% to 466,185. Quickly, studying the chart leads one to the conclusion that the population of the 13 Colonies jumped by about 30%+ every 10 years well into the early 1800s.

That’s a lot of babies!!! The truth is U.S. population growth was not organic. Popular culture would like you to believe that people from all over the world came to the 13 Colonies to seek fame and fortune.

But did they? The truth is a lot different. Experts who have studied immigration to the 13 colonies estimate that between one-half and two-thirds of the immigrants who arrived before the American Revolution came as indentured servants.

And then there were the convicts. The story starts with the British Parliament in 1716 realizing that it had a crime problem that was two-fold. One, crime was rising. Two, the government didn’t have enough prisons to house convicted criminals, nor did the parsimonious Parliament want to build more that they would have to support.

Enter the Transportation Act of 1717, a.k.a. The Piracy Act of 1717, and a.k.a. The Felons Act of 1717. What it did was shift the burden of paying for the housing of criminals to the private sector.

Convicted criminals would be transported to a British Colony for seven years for minor crimes and 14 years for major crimes. Before they boarded a ship, a British businessman either in England or the 13 Colonies took a contract on the prisoner and paid for the prisoner’s and, if applicable, his family’s passage. Once in North America, the prisoner became an indentured servant to the businessman for the period of his or her sentence.

Long before Botany Bay in Australia became famous as a home for convicts, the British were sending convicts to North America. Estimates vary from 30,000 to 50,000 men, women, and children who came here to complete their sentence as indentured servants.

Start doing the math, but if they were in their 20s when they arrived in 1720s or 1730s, their sons and grandsons probably fought in the American Revolution. And their progeny, if you want to really start digging into ancestries, were our Founding Fathers.

1738 Indentured Servant Contract of Henry Mayer to Abraham Hestant of Bucks County, PA

The post Criminals Immigrated as Indentured Servants appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Presidential Power to Recall the National Guard Is in the Constitution

Before there was a National Guard, there were state militias. Before them, there were state militias, and before them, there were colonial militias.

For the record, calling out the National Guard and/or the state militia to quell domestic violence is not new. In 1794, President George Washington mobilized militias from four states to control a rebellion by citizens against what they thought was an excessive tax on whiskey. See 8/1/21 post (# 121) Whiskey Tax Leads to Rebellion – https://marcliebman.com/whiskey-tax-leads-to-rebellion/ for more about this event.

More recently, the National Guard – the direct descendant of the state militias – was called out in 1967 to help put down the riots in Detroit. Again, in 1968, after Martin Luther King was assassinated, National Guard units were called into action. In 1992, they were used to help quell the riots in LA.

So, where does the President get this power? In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…

As a National Guard soldier or airman, one is subject to the orders of the President, even though when not recalled to active duty or “Federalized,” the Air and Army National Guard reports to the state’s governor. The National Guard is equipped, trained, and funded primarily by DOD.

The second source of the President’s authority to deploy the militia (and now the National Guard) begins with the Militia Acts of 1792, revised in 1795, then again in 1808, 1862, and 1903, to name just a few times it has been reconfirmed and/or expanded.

The first Militia Act of 1792, Article I, Section 1 gave the President the power to call out state militias whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe…

Section 2 of Article 1, gives the power to order the militias to active duty whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act…

Marshals refers to law enforcement officials. The act also requires the President to order the mob to disburse and leave the scene peacefully within a specified time before he can recall the militias.

The second Militia Act of 1792 authorized what we would call a draft in time of war and required members of the militia to provide their own equipment. It also gave specifics on the equipment each militiaman must have and established an org chart for each militia unit.

The Militia Act of 1795 tweaked both of the 1792 acts and, most importantly, gave the President’s permanent power to call up the militia under conditions listed in the act. While the President’s role as commander in chief of the militia was open to interpretation to some, the Militia Act of 1903 put that to rest. Known as the Dick Act, the President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the National Guard and has the power to order them to active duty. The President can order any National Guard unit to active duty to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws.

The Dick Act has been updated several times, but the power given to the President has not changed. All this leads one to wonder if several state governors or their lawyers have ever read the Dick Act or any of its modifications that increase the power of the President in this regard?

Don Troiani painting, Stand Your Ground, April 19th, 1775, courtesy of the National Guard Bureau.

The post Presidential Power to Recall the National Guard Is in the Constitution appeared first on Marc Liebman.

What and Who to Tax

Taxes have always been an issue in American politics. If one goes back to the American Revolution, being taxed unfairly was one of the major causes. The Brits wanted to impose or raise taxes on commodities such as tea, paper, glass, and paint. All in the name of having the Thirteen Colonies pay the costs of their government.

So fast forward to, for example, the year 1805. The United States of America had been an independent country for 22 years. In just over two decades, we’d gone from a loose confederation of independent states governed by the Articles of Confederation to creating the U.S. Constitution and making it work.

In 22 years, we’d elected three presidents—Washington, Adams, and Jefferson —fought a war against the French, another against the Barbary Pirates, and managed to stay out of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. The country had physically doubled in size with the Louisiana Purchase, and settlers were moving westward. We could do this because our population had increased from 2.5 million in 1775 to 3.93 million in 1790 to 5.3 million in 1800 and growing about 35+% every 10 years.

The Industrial Revolution had begun, and along with those in England, U.S. inventors were leading the way. Immigrants were pouring into the new United States from primarily war-torn Europe. Through legislation, we determined who we should let in, how they should be vetted, and what the path to citizenship was.

To manage all of this, the United States needed an effective central government. 1805 was picked arbitrarily because Jefferson had just been elected for his second term. As a Democratic-Republican, he was philosophically opposed to a strong central government and wanted the United States to stay primarily agrarian. Jefferson didn’t believe in standing armies or navies and didn’t want the country to incur debt.

If this sounds familiar, the question of how U.S. citizens pay for their government has been an issue since the Revolutionary War. After trying to govern under the Articles of Confederation in which the Continental Congress had to beg each of the 13 states for money, our Founding Fathers ensured that the new Constitution gives the Federal government the power to tax its citizens.

Back in 1805, there was no individual or corporate income or sales taxes. The Federal government’s sources of income to pay is obligations rested on three pillars.

Pillar one – excise taxes on items such as rum and whiskey, tobacco and tobacco products, refined sugar and molasses, salt, and carriages. If one sold a slave, the Federal government got a percentage of the sale.

Pillar two – taxes on land sales. If a person bought land through the Land Act of 1804, he/she paid a tax on the acquired land you and from that point on, the owner paid taxes annually on the assessed value of the property.

Pillar three – customs duties and tariffs assessed on manufactured goods being imported and exported.

Although not intended this way by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution, the president has the power to use tariffs as a foreign policy tool.

1765 cartoon that appeared in British newspapers by unknown artist depicts Lord Pitt driving his government into an abyss by forcing the Stamp Act on its 13 American colonies.

The post What and Who to Tax appeared first on Marc Liebman.

The Context Changes, but the Issues Don’t

The following words appear in the Congressional record…. Our government is deeply disordered; its credit is impaired; its debt increasing; its expenditures extravagant and wasteful; its disbursements without efficient accountability; and its taxes (for duties are but taxes) enormous, unequal, and oppressive to the great producing classes of the country.

Reading them, one would think Elon Musk or a member of the DOGE team or U.S. Congressman or Senator spoke them in 2025. The topics are familiar – fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal programs, taxes, duties on foreign goods (i.e., tariffs), tax cuts for the middle and lower classes vs. taxing the rich, etc.

But they weren’t. These words are a part of a speech written by Senator John C. Calhoun and spoken on March 4th, 1850, by James Mason, a friend of Calhoun’s and a Senator from Virginia. Calhoun, who would die from tuberculosis 27 days later, was too weak to stand, much less speak. He watched Mason deliver his speech wrapped in a blanket.

The speech was made during the debates for what became the Great Compromise of 1850, which was one of, if not the most contentious in our history. All the major players in Congress – Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay – and the president, Zachary Taylor, were born during the American Revolution or shortly after. Millard Fillmore was born in 1800.

The issues were fundamental to the future of the United States, i.e.,

How does the country divide the territory acquired from Mexico after the Mexican War?

Does the U.S. admit California as a state?

Will slavery be permitted in the newly organized Oregon, New Mexico, and Utah territories or the unorganized territory?

Will slavery continue to be allowed in the District of Columbia?

How does the Federal government deal with fugitive slaves?

What will be the boundaries of Texas?

Will the Federal government assume the State of Texas’ $10,000,000 (worth about $409,998,718 on June 1st, 2025) in debt?

On the floor of the House and Senate, it went beyond yelling. At one point, when Vice President Fillmore, sitting as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, told Missouri Senator Thomas Benton he was out of order. Frustrated that Benton did not obey the order to sit down and be quiet, an additional argument ensued between Benton and Mississippi Senator Henry Foote. Benton charged Foote who drew a pistol. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and the speeches continued.

In the middle of the debate, President Taylor died and was succeeded by Fillmore. Eight bills written primarily by Senator Henry Clay from Kentucky were proposed and were supported by now President Fillmore who, by the way, for the rest of his term did not have a Vice President.

Clay’s bills provided for the admission of California as a free state. Texas would relinquish its claims to New Mexico and Colorado in exchange for the U.S. assuming its debt. The New Mexico and Utah territories were created, and as states were created from these territories, the citizens could choose if they would allow or prohibit slavery. Another bill forbade importing slaves into the District of Columbia for sale.

However, the key to getting the southern states to vote for the other bills was Clay proposed what became the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It was more stringent than the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 in that it required law enforcement agencies to return fugitive slaves to their owners. Fines and penalties were written into the law to be assessed to policemen who did not enforce the new law.

Needless to say, the law was not popular in the states where slavery was not permitted. It led to willful disobedience by local governments who flatly refused to enforce the act’s terms and conditions and by private citizens who facilitated the movement of fugitive slaves from the U.S. to Canada.

Map of the U.S. after the Compromise of 1850 by Golbez.

The post The Context Changes, but the Issues Don’t appeared first on Marc Liebman.