In reaction of President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard to quell riots in Los Angeles, California Governor Gavin Newsom claimed “He’s not for peacemaking, he’s here for civil war on the streets,” The use of the term “civil war” is exactly the kind of extreme rhetoric that can only serve to enflame a tense situation. It is not quite the Orwellian language that has been used by other left-wingers who have claimed across the country that the law enforcement at all levels “provoke” crime and violence, thus casting gangsters and rioters as the victims of a “police state” or even the fallacious charge of “fascism” that appears on the placards of protesters. Melissa Gira Grant, a staff writer for The New Republic, even claimed that the rioters were only trying “to defend themselves and one another from violent raids” by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents rounding up illegal aliens accused of a variety of crimes including sexual assault, drug pushing, and murder. So where did the violence start?
And where do civil wars start? Los Angeles is a self-proclaimed “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants in defiance of Federal law. This is reminiscent of the Nullification controversy, which was a major step towards the American Civil War. The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 began with the passage of the Tariff of 1828. With a tariff rate of 49%, this was a protective tariff meant to support the growth of American manufacturing and reduce dependence on imports which put the national economy at risk from foreign agents and governments. This had been a core objective of nationalists from gaining independence to writing the Constitution granting Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations.” Even before he became President Washington’s Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton wrote his seminal Report on Manufacturing in 1791, Hamilton had championed protective tariffs. Writing as “The Continentalist” in 1782, Hamilton argued that the notion that international trade had “no need of a common directing power” was “one of those wild speculative paradoxes, which have grown to credit among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.” Today, President Trump is trying to untangle the dangerous dependencies and vulnerabilities that were allowed to form when Hamilton’s wisdom was forgotten.
AT via Magic Studio” class=”post-image-right” src=”https://images.americanthinker.com/uy/uyqfxhlra6kgcseh1i2l_640.jpg” width=”450″ />Fifty years after Hamilton’s column appeared, South Carolina declared that it would “nullify” the tariff within its State borders. This drew on the work of John C. Calhoun, who had been Vice President when the tariff was enacted. Calhoun believed in State sovereignty overruling Federal laws that were not in its interests. The slave-dominated southern economies were locked into agriculture and had no interest in industrialization. They preferred to deal with Europe to prevent dependence within the Union, where they feared pressure to reform. Hamilton had argued that the North and South were natural economic partners, but the plantation elite recognized no partners and rejected nationalism. Calhoun’s thesis was in line with the Articles of Confederation, the form of government whose failure led to the adoption of the Constitution for a more perfect Union. And the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Hamilton was the main author of the Federalist Papers, which remain the best source for what the Framers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. These paper should be referenced more often as too many people in today’s debates treat the Constitution like the Bible — and read into it whatever they want. In Federalist 16, Hamilton continues the critique of the Confederation’s weakness and the need for a single, central Federal government with the powers and resources needed to carry out its assigned functions. But he notes the dangerous ability of States “NOT TO ACT or TO ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the constitution.” This is what California, and other “sanctuary” areas are doing (or not doing). But they go even further and interfere with the duties of the national authorities (which they are in effect doing when allowing, even encouraging. mob actions). Hamilton thought of this as well: “As to those partial commotions and insurrections which sometimes disquiet society, from the intrigues of an inconsiderable faction, or from sudden or occasional ill humours that do not infect the great body of the community, the general government could command more extensive resources for the suppression of disturbances of that kind” than could any State. Thus, the use of national troops.
President Andrew Jackson responded accordingly to the South Carolina insurrection which not only rejected Federal law, but also any ruling by the Supreme Court, while threatening secession. He pushed Congress to pass the Force Bill authorizing the use of Federal troops to enforce the tariff, along with a Compromise Tariff bill that would reduce tariffs to 20% in a decade. South Carolina backed down, but the issues would fester until 1860. With the election of Abraham Lincoln, the plantation owners feared the political scales had swung to the Republican Party, so they pulled out of the Union in a fatal attempt to save themselves. Many in today’s Blue States (which we should start calling Confederate Gray) fear the scales have again swung against the Democrats and they have embraced “States Rights” in the Calhoun tradition to defy reform.
These are not and cannot be “peaceful” protests. The duties of national law enforcement are being met with force. Burning cars, attacking Federal buildings, throwing rocks at officers (akin to attempted murder), and blockading transport routes are not exercises of free speech. They are not meant to persuade, but to intimidate and coerce (because they know they have lost the debate). Even looting, which most people see as criminal, is defended among those who openly embrace insurrection as the start of a revolutionary civil war. Consider the book In Defense of Looting by Vicky Osterweil, which was given sympathetic coverage on NPR. She proclaims, “Looting is a method of direct redistribution of wealth, from the store owners and capitalists to the poor” and that “looting is usually followed up by burning down the store.” The desired result is “the collapse of the system.” The fact that many of the stores being destroyed by the current riots in LA are owned by Hispanics, immigrants and their children who are productive members of society and not criminals, is revealing of the true agenda of the Left. The defense of outlaws who cannot be assimilated into a peaceful, decent, and prosperous society but can be used as rebels.
The current case is even worse than normal as rioters not only burn the American flag, but dance around the flames waving the flags of Mexico, El Salvador, and others showing where their loyalty lies — and it is not with us. I remember seeing many such demonstrations in Washington where foreign flags dominated. There was a backlash against this, so the organizers started handing out small U.S. flags. But this was a sham exercise as shown by the young man I saw outside my office one day. He had been given a U.S. flag, but he had dressed himself in a Che Guevara t-shirt.
In Federalist 16, Hamilton hoped he could trust the American people. He wrote, “If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale, and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest.” The next few days will tell if Hamilton’s faith is still realistic.
William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who has worked for conservative think tanks and on the Republican staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications including for the Army War College, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the National Defense University, among others.
Image: AT via Magic Studio
This article was originally published at www.americanthinker.com
