Posted on 01/18/2005 5:57:53 PM PST by wagglebee
I would ask for a refund on that MBA. I minored in economics, and I understand perfectly that exporters must be compensated for their products. If the Southern states exported 250 million in products, that money, or products in that value must be returned to them. Protectionist tariffs reduce the amount they receive, whether the product is delivered to a warehouse in New York or Charleston.
I wouldn't bend over and take it like you seem to desire.
Let me rephase this in some fashion that might seep through - suppose the UN declares that the US leaving that organization is illegal, and demands that our armed forces - which have served under the blue banner - will wage war on Americans. Will you fight for or support the UN?
Looking back, we can see how his choice prolonged the war and made it more costly than it otherwise could have been.
So in other words, you'd to surrender, instead of fighting for your God given rights?
And why is it so hard to accept that virtually all that return was in money, which was not subject to tariff?
Protectionist tariffs reduce the amount they receive, whether the product is delivered to a warehouse in New York or Charleston.
Yes, if the southern plantation owners operated on a barter economy but they didn't. Why would they subject themselves to that risk? It makes more sense to sell the crop to a middle man once harvested. Let someone else find an overseas buyer and take on the risk of shipping the cotton accross the Atlantic. Why put you entire income for the year on a boat yourself? What if it sinks?
There is no doubt that the south accounted for the overwhelming majority of exports in the mid-19th century. But a dollar exported from the south did not automatically translate into a dollar imported by the south, far from it. So I would ask, yet again, just what it was that you believe the south imported in such vast quantities that the tariff hit them so badly?
So let me see if I have this straight. You have no more loyalty to the United States as you would have for the UN? Is that what you're saying?
And Sherman spoke well of Grant too:
"General Sherman remarked:
'General Grant is a great general, I know him well. He stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk; and now, sir, we stand by each other always"
Which was Sherman's way of saying don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. The drunk beat Bobby Lee and the crazy guy beat Johnston and Hood, so they must have been doing something right.
BTW, I'm reading "Days of Glory: The Army of the Cumberland, 1861-1865" by Larry J. Daniel. You would probably enjoy it, if only for some of the descriptions of Sherman made by some of his peers during his brief, disasterous tour as commander.
He probably overestimated the dollar amount of damage done. Just like the southron supporters have been doing on a much larger scale for the last 140 years. But I digress.
Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley were vital to the southern war effort. They provided vast quantities of supplies to the confederate armies. The Union command belatedly came to the conclusion that removing them as a source of those supplies would shorten the war. The actions of Sherman in Georgia and Sheridan in the Valley were severe, no doubt about that. War is a harsh undertaking and, as I have pointed out on innumerable occasions, civilians generally wind up taking it in the shorts. That has been the way throughout history, and probably always will be. Rebellions seem to incite even more hatred than wars between nations, and again, it's been that way throughout history. During the American rebellion, China was in the middle of the Taiping Rebellion which took the lives of between 20 and 30 million people. Look at rebellions in Spain, in Russia, China, India, in any country you care to name and I suggest that in none of them was the life and property of the opponents respected as much as it was during the American Civil War, that none of them had as few civilian casualties, and in none of them was the consequence of loosing as mild as it was in the United States.
a)Should have been destroyed
Walt, the poster you addressed can respond, but destruction of the Union was never a goal. We just thought downsizing was in order.
How can you claim destruction of the United States was not the goal? The south seceeded 11 states - 1/3 of the nation - and took the property with them. Their goal was dissolution of the United States.
If you really wish the Confederacy had won, if you believe they were right, how can you fly the U.S. flag?
Ignoring the logical fallacy of the question (a negative cannot be proved.)
Dissolving the union that was, in no way implies the destruction of union that remained. All Abe needed to say was "Fare thee well."
I admit to being mostly absent on the thread; but, whence this "destruction of the United States"?
I s'wan, it sho' sound like Walt. Lawd a mucy.
The destruction of Britain was a goal of Nazi Germany.
You are still not answering the question.
If you really wish the Confederacy had won, if you believe they were right, how can you fly the U.S. flag?
The states either never developed or let go of the the signs of sovereignty -- armies, navies, embassies, treaty making power, postal services, tariffs, distinctive units of currency, established religions. This, and much that was written and said at the time, indicates that the framers of the Constitution were concerned with forming a more perfect union, rather than a league of sovereign states. That's not the case with the United Nations.
So in other words, you'd to surrender, instead of fighting for your God given rights?
So if everybody was jumping off a bridge, you'd do the same? If the country or a large part of it goes crazy one may not be able to avoid joining in the madness, but it's not something to celebrate. If you feel that some "state's rights" were lost, much of the blame rests with those who rashly abused whatever state perogatives there were in defense of an unworthy cause.
And all Jeff Davis needed to NOT say was, "Fire". Time was on his side, he could allowed supplies to be landed at Sumter, by summer Lincoln would have been the only person in the North not recognizing an independent confederate states. But instead he initiated a war and lost everything.
"Shame on you. You questioned the patriotism of an entire State."
You really are a bit thick headed. I did no such thing. "Jersey" was a reference to your name, and I did not question your patriotism.
"Moving on, are you saying then that you see the preservation of the Union as a good thing? That you are glad the Confederacy was defeated?"
Preservation of the Union is a good thing, but at the cost of the concept of a limited government....a bad thing.
I am not glad or sad about the demise of the confederacy any more than I am glad or sad that I have two hands and two feet. It is fact and part of who we are as Americans.
I am glad to be an American, as are all of those who admire and respect Gen. Lee.
I will not repudiate the cause of states rights for which the confederacy fought (see 10th amendment), nor will I pine for it's return.
I will honor the veterans.....the Americans that fought on both sides. I will continue to admire R.E. Lee & Stonewall Jackson, not just because of their ties to my home town and alma mater, but because they are truly great generals and Americans who fought with honor.
Wrong. SC moved before Davis was elected president. SC acted as a sovereign nation-state. Lincoln's refusal to meet with SC envoys and his refusal to uphold Buchannan's agreement of a truce on hostilities at Sumter was a clear sign of war.
Charleston was a ready to ignite for months. Lincoln dropped the match.
I was not refering to the post where you OBVIOUSLY meant my name. I was refering to a different post.
Today, you will find no more patriotic an area than the South, and probably more American flags per capita than NJ.
Lemme get this straight. If Davis had just stood fast, Lincoln would NOT have invaded the South?
Is that what you are saying?
Wrong. The Feb 4 assembly of the Southern delegates argued two names for their confederacy of states:
The intent was to show concurrance of the Constitution and to show the northern states were the violators - not the southern states.
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.