Ken Burns, The Civil War, Robert E. Lee and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

Feb 2019
Pennsylvania, US
I have already quoted the Constituion showing that tariffs were always legal under the Constitution. The only change the Confederates made to that part of their Constitution was they also allowed tariffs on exports.
For several years after the revolution, it was not a part of the agenda - and most states would have written their own rules applying only to themselves... I'm talking about the addition of the Taxing and Spending clause in 1787 (after the war, after the initially agreement of the secession of states)... So after agreeing to join the United States under the assumption that moneys would be donated willingly, this tax clause was added later. My point is that a state may have signed on, under the assumption they escaped taxation by Britain, and later find their new government was imposing taxes.

"One of the most often claimed defects of the Articles of Confederation was its lack of a grant to the central government of the power to lay and collect taxes.[5][6] Under the Articles, Congress was forced to rely on requisitions upon the governments of its member states. Without the power to independently raise its own revenues, the Articles left Congress vulnerable to the discretion of the several State governments—each State made its own decision as to whether it would pay the requisition or not. Some states were not giving Congress the funds for which it asked by either paying only in part, or by altogether ignoring the request from Congress.[7] Without the revenue to enforce its laws and treaties, or pay its debts, and without an enforcement mechanism to compel the States to pay, the Confederation was practically rendered impotent and was in danger of falling apart. " - Taxing and Spending Clause Background Wikipedia

"The national Congress' limited power was especially clear when it came to money issues. Not surprisingly, given that the Revolution's causes had centered on opposition to unfair taxes, the central government had no power to raise its own revenues through taxation. All it could do was request that the states give it the money necessary to run the government and wage the war." - Basic History Website Easier than referencing 1777 Articles of Confederation ;)
Last edited:
Jun 2017
The wound he got sounded HORRENDOUS. A bullet passing through both hips and nicking your bladder would be difficult to heal - and it sounded like he had to have subsequent surgeries after his Maine surgeon stepped in an initially saved him (J.L. was promoted, everyone thinking it would be a sort of death bed promotion, until T. D. Chamberlain got their surgeon involved and saved his brother)... but bullet wounds tend to cause recurrent infections, on account of their needing to close from the inside-out... every time the skin closes over the wound it could potentially trap infection and cause problems. He must have been in awful pain (scar tissue on your bladder would probably hurt every time those muscles flexes), with possible fever and fatigue from low-level infection... risk of sepsis... I don't know how he served out the end of the war. Also, it seems to be very telling of the character of the guy that he was heartbroken at being rejected for service in the Spanish-American War when he probably was still living with the agony of this old wound. I can't even imagine.

He outlived almost all of his younger brothers with their mysterious lung complaints (hemorrhaging, almost reminiscent of some of the symptoms associated autoimmune disease), so that is something!
I hadn't realized that he had been so badly wounded. Yes, it must have been very painful. Considering how very busy he was for the rest of his life, he is remarkable to have risen above it. But he was lucky not to have landed up like so many badly injured and diseased Maine soldiers (and probably from elsewhere): they were discharged and sent home to die. Our town office has a list of Civil War vets who died within 5 years of discharge. I should think that there were others, like General Chamberlain, who had to carry the war into the next century.


Ad Honorem
Apr 2010
Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
I heard a great take on the causes of the civial war the other day.
Basically, the war started and was fought over slavery, the actualy people involved fought for a myriad of reasons.
In many cases you'd only know who did what by reading the individual primary sources.

Similar History Discussions