Posted on 12/08/2007 10:54:00 PM PST by stainlessbanner
You didn’t answer my question.......”how many did youse guys have”? I didnt accuse the North of rebelling either. I’m just saying...slavery went on in the North as well as the agricultural South.
In round numbers? We had just under 4 million. About 3.6 million of which were living in states that were rebelling against the federal government.
I’m just saying...slavery went on in the North as well as the agricultural South.
But the Northern states didn't feel the need to launch a rebellion to protect slavery.
And President Lincoln failed to free them there. What year was that? Let me see.....
Don’t worry, they have nearly stopped teaching about the war in the North. It only gets a couple of paragraphs so there will be more room for the Soviet Revolution and their real heroes like Karl Marx. It also seems that they are more interested in Lincoln’s sexual preferences than the reasons that nearly caused so much carnage and nearly split this nation.
I think the years that you are looking for is 1864, when the 13th Amendment ending slavery was passed out of the Senate and when Lincoln made ratification of the amenment a plank in the 1864 Republican platform and when he pushed the lame-duck Congress to pass the amendment and send it to the states. And also 1865 when the amendment was sent to the states and ratified.
Don’t forget 1862, when Lincoln and Congress abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, since that could be done without a constitutional amendment.
You need to read some history, my friend.
The vast majority of trade was between the Southern states and Europe; the North exported nothing, and imported very little. The South, on the other hand, exported almost its goods and products, and imported a great deal of what it needed and wanted in return. Eli Whitney’s little invention was a marvel, no?
You said: “Which were the only states it could be applied to. For the rest it required a constitutional amendment, which Lincoln also supported through the House and Senate and to the states.”
What tripe! Lincoln considered the Southern states to be still part of the Union, but wayward misfits. As such, the Constitution still applied to them, and a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery would still be required. If, on the other hand, with secession the Southern states became an independent nation, than Lincoln had no legal authority over it whatsoever (except in those Southern territories that were under Union occupation, like some of the southernmost Louisiana parishes, to which the Emancipation Proclamation specifically did not apply).
Lincoln had no intention whatsoever of freeing anyone (except, as someone had previosuly stated, in the District of Columbia, which was done in 1862 NOT by any benevolence of Ol’ Abe, but because he was presented pretty much with a fait accompli).
Then why were almost all of those goods landed in three Northern ports? If they were destined for Southern consumers why didn't they go straight to Southern ports?
The South, on the other hand, exported almost its goods and products, and imported a great deal of what it needed and wanted in return.
A grear deal? In one sentence you say that they imported almost everything and then suddenly it's a great deal. There is a paradox in what you claim, if the North imported next to nothing then why, based on revenue collections, did all the goods land there? What sense is there to bringing goods destined for South Carolina to New York, land them, pay tariffs, load them again, and send them South?
You need to read some history, my friend.
Lincoln considered the Southern states to be still part of the Union, but wayward misfits. As such, the Constitution still applied to them, and a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery would still be required.
Not necessarily. The Confiscation Acts passed in 1861 and 1862 gave the government to authority to seize without compensation any private property used to support the rebellion. There is no doubt that slaves fell under that category, and that is why the Emancipation Proclamation applied to those areas still under confederate control. And not to put too fine a legal point on the matter, the Emancipation Proclamation did not rule slavery illegal. Had the 13th Amendment not been raftified then once the Southern states had surrendered they could have, in theory, bought slaves from the two states where slavery was still legal and nothing could have prevented that.
If, on the other hand, with secession the Southern states became an independent nation...
The only people who believed the confederacy to be an independent nation were the confederates themselves.
Lincoln had no intention whatsoever of freeing anyone...
Complete nonsense.
...except, as someone had previosuly stated, in the District of Columbia, which was done in 1862 NOT by any benevolence of Ol’ Abe, but because he was presented pretty much with a fait accompli.
And you base this on what? Control over the District was in the hands of Congress and not Lincoln. Had Lincoln opposoed the ending of slavery in D.C. he could have vetoed it. But he did not, just the opposite. He supported it.
Can we call it the War of Southern Democrat Insurrection?
You have to wonder why if Ike Pringle was held in such high regard as a confederate soldier that no one could find the time to even put a headstone on his grave.
They put an headstone on The grave of Robert E. Lee’s horse Traveler.
They obviously valued Traveller’s service more than Mr. Pringle’s.
The South rebelled and tried to secede. The North has basically overthrown the government our Founders gave us in bits and pieces by subverting it from within. Starting with the 14th Amendment, and continuing to this day with its leftism, Political Correctness, election of anti-American politicians, and general disregard for the United States Constitution. Not all Notherners, obviously, but enough that anti-American, anti-U.S. Constitution politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, Spitzer, Hillary, Schumer, Obama, Durbin, and many others are the norm up there.
No area is completely immune from this self-immolation, but just about any suicidal movement in our history can be traced to the Northern States or to “northernized” areas such as the West Coast. Political Correctness, abortionism, the gay agenda, anti-American and anti-war movements, sociological jurisprudence, softness on crime, gun control, multiculturalism. You name it.
TheSouthDemocrats rebelled and tried to secede.
Fixed it for you.
Uh, okay. You do know, of course, that the descedants of those Democrats are today Republicans and are about the only remaining opposition to the abolition of America. Other than the South, what is left of America as a free and conservative nation? Indiana, Alaska, and some small population states in the mountain West and farm belt (Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho....). Without the descendants of those hated Confederate Democrats, the Yankee and West Coast liberal states would electorally crush any other pockets of conservatism.
Rubbish. You greatly over estimate the power of liberalism.
Those same democrats you suggest are able to destroy this country were ready to secede again when President Bush got re-elected.
Yeah, we know liberalism has been on the defensive and in retreat for the past forty years. I guess we can blame conservatives for out of control entitlements, illegitimacy, abortion, affirmative action, the trashing of the Constitution, homosexual indoctrination in the schools, the dumbing down of our educational system, sanctuary cities, and the fact that about half the population was ready to put an anti-war activist in the White House three years after 9/11.
Those same democrats you suggest are able to destroy this country were ready to secede again when President Bush got re-elected.
That's because liberalism is a totalitarian psychotic disorder. The further to the left the country goes, the more hysterical the demands of the left become. And the more rabid the left becomes in its adamancy that conservatism be completely suppressed and eliminated. America today is clearly far to the left of what it was forty years ago, but that just creates a demand for it to move further to the left. And anyone even mildly resisting moving further to the left (such as President Bush, who is actually not even very conservative) triggers mouth-foaming hysteria on the left. It's called "Bush Derangement Syndrome", but it'll be called something else once he leaves office.
This is why Bush is hated even more than Ronald Reagan. Reagan was clearly more conservative, but the country is much further to the left now than it was in the eighties. That makes the leftists all the more hysterical, all the more demanding, all the more totalitarian, and all the more convinced that anyone who disagrees with them on anything is a "fascist" monster who needs to be eliminated.
That's why they were screaming that America was just an intolerable place for liberals to live after the 2004 elections. Even though we were further to the left than we'd ever been, the fact that Bush wasn't ready to completely surrender to our enemies or to sign a bill banning discrimination against men who wear women's clothes was seen by them as "proof" that America was becoming a Hitlerian regime.
The South exported cotton, rice, sugar and tobacco as its principle trading goods. It imported textiles (especially from Britain) because under their trade agreements it was cheaper for the South to import textiles from Europe than it was to buy them from Northen mills. When the federal government instituted revenue tariffs it threatened Southern imports, so in many instances Southern traders opted to pay the tariffs that Europe owed in order to keep commerce and trade flowing. However, Europe (especially Britain) was incensed that tariffs were applied at all, and ended up instituting some of their own, and since the South was Europe’s main trading partner, it bore the brunt of those tariffs. Then, when the federal government applied protective tariffs, it cut the South’s economy off at the knees. Protective tariffs didn’t affect the North much at all, but they seriously impacted the South.
The Southern states had trade agreements with Britain? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a clear violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power..."?
When the federal government instituted revenue tariffs it threatened Southern imports, so in many instances Southern traders opted to pay the tariffs that Europe owed in order to keep commerce and trade flowing.
But there is little evidence that there were a lot of goods imported into the South to begin with.
However, Europe (especially Britain) was incensed that tariffs were applied at all, and ended up instituting some of their own, and since the South was Europe’s main trading partner, it bore the brunt of those tariffs.
How is this possible? The European powers paid the market price for the Southern exports. Any tariff, assuming that there were tariffs to begin with and I've never seen anything indicating there were, would have been borne by the European consumers. Just as U.S. tariffs were borne by U.S. consumers.
Then, when the federal government applied protective tariffs, it cut the South’s economy off at the knees. Protective tariffs didn’t affect the North much at all, but they seriously impacted the South.
Nonsense. Protective tariffs impacted anyone who was buying the protected goods.
Where to begin?
(1) Southerners were allowed to enter into trade with foreign entities just like Northerners were (though, you don’t like that);
(2) Read some basic American economic history. Southern interests imported a great deal from Europe as part of the trade contracts they had for Southern cotton (especially) and other goods. Kind of like what goes on nowadays, and what has so many people up in arms about trade deficits;
(3) Many Southern mercantile interests agreed to pay the tariffs (or a portion of them) for the Europeans in order to keep up commerce (such practices are even practiced today in some sectors). When European exporters retaliated by initiating their own tariffs, they did not agree to pick them up, in whole or in part, for their customers in the South;
(4) Southern merchants purchased the goods that were affected by the protective tariffs, and thus had to pay them.
Really, non-sequitur, everyone on FR knows of your utter contempt and disdain for anything Southern, and your lap-dog adoration of Abraham Lincoln. Anything or anyone who holds a different view from your inflexible and egocentric opinion is, in your eyes, just wet mud.
I’m through with you. Go back to your mother’s basement and don’t bother the adults anymore. And go back to school!
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.