Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
Closer to 95% actually.
I wasn't even going to reply to whatshisname.
Walt
That never happened. (walt)
Congratulations Walt. You've finally crossed the line over into total insanity and conspiracy kookdom.
Hitler had no plans for worldwide conquest. His plans, laid out in his 1925 biography, were continental in extent, and he never wavered from them.
I've shown that by appeal to three reputable historians.
You won't show anything else -- except your cupidity in taking my comments out of context to hide your own mistakes.
Walt
That's not true.
The Mississippi secession convention began their declaration of causes with the statement, "Our cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of African slavery."
"And Texas:
...[the Northern States] have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purpose are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that the `Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
"They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
--Texas Declaration of Secession.
And South Carolina:
"For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/plat.html
GOPCap is peddling more manure. But the record is plain.
Walt
And as Alexander Stephens pointed out so clearly in his December 1860 speech to the Georgia Secession Convention, Lincoln did not have to power to pass any legislation or even name his cabinet without southern support. The Republicans were a minority in congress. The Morrill Act only passed congress because 11 southern states had withdrawn their deligations.
As to conspiracy, you said it, I didn't. The legend must not be questioned, the hype not denied now, the park is up and running in Ky. and jobs provided by Feds there, and to try to correct this might be interpreted as denigrating Lincoln's divinity and status as a deity.
This even though as one poster has said, it really does not detract from HIS [actual] character, but only attempts to debunk the legend about him, the myth not the man...
But this myth is just too holy to question, it seems, and even Lincoln master biographer Carl Sandburg (born in Illinois) knew the truth but could do nothing, save to move to North Carolina and live out his life not far from the REAL birthplace.
Sure it's ludicrous. The real, little know, and totally undisputed story is that Abe was the love child of Elvis and Marilyn, but old Joe Kennedy thought Abe was his, so he made him President. The damnyankee revisionist historians have been hiding the truth out in Roswell for all these years. ;~))
This is just one example of why government-run education was a bad idea. This is only one of many myths firmly held by our population now for generations. Inundate the textbooks with a lie, and that lie will become accepted truth pretty quickly.
The "upward spike" in tariff rates is due first to the withdrawal of Southern Senators and Representatives from Congress and secondly to the necessity of financing the war. Higher taxes, North and South, were the rule during the war.
Do they mention the support of James Buchanan and other Democrats for an upward revision of tariffs to pay for the deficit? Regardless of what we think about the economic wisdom of this, a modest increase in tariff rates was apparently a relatively uncontroversial proposal in the early Buchanan administration.
Do they mention sugar tariffs? It's been alleged that the Confederacy retained the protective sugar tariff to please Louisiana. If true, it's a blow to the views attributed to the article's authors and to their whole reading of the Confederate Constitution.
And of course, an area under blockade was not likely to get much from import tariffs. One would have to consider other taxes as well, such as the income tax, capital levies, labor requisitions, excise taxes, the export tax, and the "hidden tax" of inflation. Military needs led the Confederate government to establish a highly centralized and bureaucratized comparatively high-tax wartime regime. There may be some truth in a snapshot view of Confederate attitudes towards tariffs in 1861, but since we don't know what tax policies the Confederacy would eventually have pursued, it's hard to make a comparison to subsequent US tax history.
Given that a revolt against higher taxes led to the nation's founding, it would be surprising if no one in 19th century America argued that lower taxes would stimulate economic activity. But what distinguished Jefferson Davis's South from Ronald Reagan's America is the largely colonial character of region. Lower import duties might bring some economic stimulation, but would not necessarily promote the development of industry or economic independence. Low tariffs promoted an agrarian economy that was dependent on foreign markets for its raw materials. It was natural that those who weren't a part of this colonial arrangement would be economically marginalized and wish for industrial stimulation.
Ronald Reagan's America already had a highly trained workforce, a comprehensive transportation network, and a developed industrial and commercial infrastructure. The fear in the mid-nineteenth century was that an America which devoted itself to providing raw materials for foreign manufacturers would never have developed such institutions. To some degree this became a North vs. South issue, but the development of industry clearly would have benefited poor Southern Whites and however many or few free Blacks as lived there. It would also have had national or regional defense benefits. But it conflicted with the slave-based, export crop economy and the power of the dominant class.
That's not to say that the low tariff side was wrong or that industrial development was a wholly good thing. Many of us would have preferred an agrarian country, if that option hadn't been bundled with slavery. I just point out that 1861 was not 1981, and the context surrounding tax and tariff questions was very different for Davis and Reagan. To ignore the colonial elements in the Southern economy of the day is to leave something very important out of the picture.
frankly, i don't care what, if anything, you think. i write for those whose eyes are NOT tightly shut against the TRUTH!
free dixie,sw
Actually with representatives, no. The southern representatives were all there when the Morrill bill was voted on in May 1860. All but one of them voted against it, whereas all but some 5-6 yankees voted for it.
Do they mention the support of James Buchanan and other Democrats for an upward revision of tariffs to pay for the deficit?
They do mention the northern Democrats support of it as a sectional thing, as well as the southern one's opposition. They also look at the rates some and point out it's schedule contained revenue measures but also protection measures, found in the higher end rates of the schedule.
a modest increase in tariff rates
The problem is it was not modest at all. They literally doubled the rates from 1861, which had been the low rates in place from the late 1850's, to 1862 after the Morrill bill. The average rates went from 18% to 36%.
was apparently a relatively uncontroversial proposal
All indications are that it was anything but and drew sharp sectional opposition from the south in near unanimaty.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ & personal power was/is the ONLY things important to either one.
So provide a source for those folks. Maybe you should call uncle ed.
i,otoh, am laughing AT walt and his more than usual brand of stupidity.
free the southland,sw
You are spreading half truths. The Morrill Act passed the House well before even one single southerner had left congress. The vote fell precisely on sectional lines, perhaps more than any other vote before the war. Only 1 southerner favored the thing, with otherwise unanimous southern opposition. The situation was opposite with near unanimous northern support, be they democrat or republican.
By 1861 the situation was clear. The incoming president wanted the tariff and had indicated he was going to push for it heavily. The senate was sectionally split almost down the line, but with the North lining up behind the thing practically unanimously a vote to pass it was definately in reach no matter what southern states had left or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.