Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederate Flag represents both heritage and hate
Walker County (Ga.) Messenger ^ | Jeannie Babb Taylor

Posted on 03/05/2008 6:38:02 PM PST by Rebeleye

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 next last
To: ought-six
Since the Northen states imported very little, the tariffs fell almsot exclusively on the Southern states.

Let's stop right there. Why do you claim that the Northern states imported very little? What evidence do you have to support that?

The tariffs protected Nothern manufacturing interests but raised the cost of everyday living in the South, and of course adversely affected the South’s commerce with its European trading partners.

Why didn't it also raise the cost of living in the North as well? A tariff inflated the prices of the protected goods for whoever bought it, North or South, East or West. The Northern consumer paid the same price for the protected good or the imported good as the Southern consumer did. So the fact is that the tariff impacted the North just as much and in the same way as it impacted the South. Wouldn't that be so?

More than 80% of the revenues generated by these tariffs were spent up North for public works and infrastructure (including subsidizing industrial works and railroads: The North had an extensive railroad apparatus, where the South had very few track miles in comparison).

Can you name some of these Northern railroads which were receiving these federal revenues, and some of the Southern railroads which did not? My reason for asking is that I'm not aware of any significant federal subsidies until the transcontinental railroads. Prior to the rebellion federal subsidies for roads, railroads, canals, etc. was very limited, with states and private companies paying most of the bills.

Likewise these other public works you speak of. What were they? Forts, courthouses, customs houses and the like, the South got plenty of them as well.

In short I'd appreciate a breakdown on this 80% figure you provided. And even if that figure is correct, I'd also point out thatin 1860 the south had only about a 5.5 million free people out of a total population of 27.2 million. That's about 80% of the population, so if they got 80% of the federal spending then what's the problem? How are they being cheated?

Then, in the late 1850s, Congress began to debate the creation of what was known as the Morrill Tariff.

Yes, yes, yes, we all know about the Morrill Tariff. I would point out that the tariff was finally passed in the House in 1860 and was promptly killed in the Senate. Had the South not seceded then that would have been it's fate in 1861 as well. The Morrill tarriff was passed because the South seceded, the South did not pass because the tariff was passed.

To get a flavor of the cause of the Civil War from dispassionate and neutral sources, one can simply read the Eurpoean accounts of the conflict, both contemporary and historical.

Wouldn't it be better to get a flavor of the cause of the rebellion from those most directly involved in the decision to secede? Those advocating it, and voting on it, and causing it in the first place rather than from people like Marx who never once set foot in the country? If you do that then it's clear that slavery was by far the single most important cause for the southern action.

So, how did the North finance the Civil War since it lost its tariff revenues? Initially, it borrowed the money. Then, it passed the Revenue Act of 1862 which raised taxes and initiated the first federal income tax. It also created what would become the Internal Revenue Service.

In his 1864 message to Congress, Lincoln reported that federal income from tariffs and duties amounted to $102 million. Tariff revenue was the second most important source of federal income behind internal revenue. According to all you're telling us about the amount of tariff revenue generated by the south prior to the rebellion, that should have been impossible. How do you explain it?

101 posted on 03/08/2008 4:56:42 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Re: Your Post 101

Where to begin, where to begin? I’ll just respond in sequence:

1) The Northen states imported far fewer goods than the Southern states because they were developing their industrial capacities and did not need the trade relationship with the other industrial manufacturers in Europe. The South’s economy was agricultural, and its only profitable market was with Europe (the North was not a profitable market for Southern crops). But Europe, understandably, didn’t want just to be an importer of someone else’s goods, it wanted a market for ITS goods (which were manufacturer goods) in return. Thus, the South and Europe became trading PARTNERS, and they bought each other’s goods. What did Europe have to export that the Northern states needed or wanted (since the North was developing its own industrial capacity)? Very little. Thus, the North obtained not much of anything from imported very little from Europe.

Europe had an alternative to Southern cotton, for instance: It could have imported cotton from Egypt. But, Egypt was not a market for European manufactured goods, so there would have been a trade imbalance.

The South HAD to buy European goods in order to keep a market for its exported agricultural goods. And in order to keep that market, it had to import goods from Europe. a trade BALANCE.

In short, the South’s trade with Europe was based on a quid pro quo: a partnership.

2) This was addressed in #1 above.

3) The govenment subsidized the tracks that were used by the various railroad companies.

4) The North had a larger population than the South, and was far more urban. Thus, it had far more infrastructure to develop and maintain. The South was rural except for a handful of port cities.

How was the South getting cheated if the North got 80% of the revenues? Because, as explained, those revenues came about because of the South’s trade partnership with Europe.

It’s like this: Say you come from a large, extended family, one in which you hardly know, and in some instances know not at all, most of your kinfolk. But, you are industrious, and have made good, and generate a nice income. Your kinfolk, though, resent — or, don’t think it’s fair — that you have all that money and that you spend it on yourself. They think that because there are far more of them than there are of you, you should spread that money around — meaning, the vast majority of it — so that they can buy some nice things, fix their roofs, buy a second car for the missus, etc. What’s more, if you don’t want to share your wealth with them, since they outnumber you, they tell you that as long as you are a part of the family you have to pay up, or they will force you to. So, what do you do? Do you cave in and cough up your money? Or, do you say “Screw that! I’m getting out of the family!”

5) The Morrill Tariff based both houses of Congress.

6) You Northern apologists (and historical revisionists) always say that the South seceded because of slavery. The use of slave labor was but one of the labor forces employed to harvest crops in the South. The South didn’t secede because the North or the federal govenment threatened to take away its slaves (slavery was legal, and the federal government had no constitutional authority to abolish slavery without a constititutional amendment doing it, and the South knew no such amendment had any chance of passing). But what the federal government did have the power to do, and the votes in Congress to make it happen, was to fleece the South of its economic interests. That was something the South could not accept.

People who are immediate to an incident see it from a filtered viewpoint, and the more emotional the incident, the more emotional the filter. That’s why it’s always good to hear an analysis from sources who “had no dog in the fight,” and thus no emotional investment.

The North did not invade the South to abolish slavery. Hell, if the North was so fired-up to to abolish slavery by force then it could have invaded the South before any state seceded! Why didn’t it? If no state had ever seceded, would the North have invaded the South to free the slaves? Of course not, and you know it. But, would the North invade to punish the South for screwing up the revenues of the federal treasury, of which the lion’s share was spent up North? History shows that’s just what the North did. But, fighting the South was not popular with all Northerners, and many opposed it (hence the tepid response to Lincoln’s first call for volunteers to invade). And, many of those who did volunteer sure as hell did not volunteer to free the slaves (even Grant said that if freeing the slaves had been the reason for the war he never would have been involved in it).

7) I never said there was no tariff revenue after the South seceded. But it was minimal compared to the levies and taxes imposed on the citizenry and domestic businesses and operations (internal revenue). Before the South seceded more than 80% of the federal revenues came from tariffs; afterwards, but a fraction of what it had been. In 1864, by your own comment, revenue from tariffs was “the second most important source of federal income behind internal revenue.” Thus, obviously, federal income from tariffs had to have been less than 50%, as if it were any more it could not have been “second most”. In fact, it was substantially less than 50%, wasn’t it?

Non-sequitur, I’ve noticed in your threads and posts that you’re real good at answering a question by asking another question, and you don’t seem to get around to well, answering the question posed. Are you a Democrat?


102 posted on 03/08/2008 11:13:42 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

More Bullsh*t.

Prove that they were coerced. Three of my ancestors didn’t own a single slave, yet VOLUNTEERED to serve in the Confederate Army.


103 posted on 03/08/2008 11:24:18 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Where to begin, where to begin? I’ll just respond in sequence.

And I'll respond in kind.

The Northen states imported far fewer goods than the Southern states because they were developing their industrial capacities and did not need the trade relationship with the other industrial manufacturers in Europe.

See, it's these kind of blanket, unsupported statements that weaken your case. Why is this true? Why wouldn't the North want imported goods if the South did as well, and if the North was developing its industries then wouldn't it also be developing its markets, North and South? So if you want to say that North didn't need imported goods because the domestic alternatives were available then the same would be true of the South as well.

But Europe, understandably, didn’t want just to be an importer of someone else’s goods, it wanted a market for ITS goods (which were manufacturer goods) in return. Thus, the South and Europe became trading PARTNERS, and they bought each other’s goods.

That is flat out ridiculous. Europe bought the South's cotton because there was no alternative source available, and their textile industries needed it. But for the sake of arguement, let's assume your statement is true. What was it that the South wanted to import from Europe in such quantities as to offset the millions of bales of cotton exports? And plese don't say 'manufactured goods'. That could encompass anything from a steam locomotive to a sewing needle. What was it that the South demanded from Europe specifically? What was it that Europe provided in such quality that the U.S. manufacturers couldn't compete?

Europe had an alternative to Southern cotton, for instance: It could have imported cotton from Egypt. But, Egypt was not a market for European manufactured goods, so there would have been a trade imbalance.

If you look at the history of cotton production, at any of the sites available on the web, neither India or Egypt were alternatives to the U.S. in 1860. Neither grew enough to feed the British textile mills and shipping costs from India, half way around the world, were prohibitive. Neither country grew the two kinds of U.S. cotton, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense, which produced a longer, stronger thread. Egypt was never a threat to the South as a source of cotton, and was only a stop-gap source during the rebellion. Once the war was over, cotton production in Egypt dropped to low levels once again and Europe resumed imports from the U.S. In spite of, it should be pointed out, ever increasing U.S. tariffs. By your logic, post rebellion purchases of U.S. cotton by British manufacturers should have continued to drop as U.S. protectionist measures grew, shouldn't it?

The South HAD to buy European goods in order to keep a market for its exported agricultural goods. And in order to keep that market, it had to import goods from Europe. a trade BALANCE.

You are assigning 21st century economic theory to 19th century economic conditions. There was no trade balance prior to the rebellion. The U.S. exported millions of bales of cotton and very few imports returned to the Southern states. That fact is clear from the export figures and tariff collection figures available. Well over 3 million bales of cotton exported in the year prior to the rebellion, and 95% of all tariffs collected in Northern ports.

2) This was addressed in #1 above.

Actually you ignored it. The point was, if tariffs raise the costs of protected items then that cost is the same for all consumers, North and South. And that is a fact. If I am a Northern consumer and I want to buy a widgit when there is a 10% protectionist tariff on it, then I have two choices. I can buy the imported one, like you claim the Southerners would, and pay the 10% tariff. Or I can buy the domestic widgit, which you claim the Northerners would, with it's price inflated by 10% due to the tariff. Either way, the consumer is impacted by the tariff. So the tariff impacts both sides equally.

The govenment subsidized the tracks that were used by the various railroad companies.

Which ones? Some names please.

The North had a larger population than the South, and was far more urban. Thus, it had far more infrastructure to develop and maintain. The South was rural except for a handful of port cities.

So what? If the North had 80% of the population and 80% of the territories, why shouldn't 80% of government spending occur there?

How was the South getting cheated if the North got 80% of the revenues? Because, as explained, those revenues came about because of the South’s trade partnership with Europe.

But once again, if your claim is true then how could tariff revenues increas so much during the war? If the South was indeed producing 80% of government revenues through the tariff then federal duties during the war should have dropped to one fifth prewar levels, shouldn't they? Instead within three years they had doubled. Without the South. Without the South's imports or exports. How was that possible?

5) The Morrill Tariff based both houses of Congress.

Yes, in March 1861. If you note that date, you'll also note that was after 7 SOuthern states had walked out, taking their senators with them. In the spring of 1860 the Senate had blocked passage of the tariff. In the spring of 1861 the Senate had enough Democrats to do it again. The tariff would not have become law if the South had not left.

You Northern apologists (and historical revisionists) always say that the South seceded because of slavery.

There is a whole lot of revisionism going on here, and I don't think it's from the Northern side. The grand Southron myth is that you all seceded because of tariffs. Yet when figures are produced showing the South most likely paid a disproportionately small share of the tariff you throw out unsupported gibberish. You want facts? Here are some for you:

Fact: in the year preceeding the rebellion, tariff collections in the 11 busiest Southern ports was less than $3 million. Tariff collections in the three busiest Northern ports was over $42.5 million. If the South exported so much and the North imported so little then why were over 9 out of every 10 dollars of imports landed in Northern ports? Source: "Statement Showing The Amount of Revenue Collected Annually in Each Collection District from June 30 1854 to June 30 1859, Exec. Doc. No.33, 36th Congress, 1st Session" as presented in Appendix 2 of "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen R. Wise.

Fact 2: in the year presceeding the rebellion 3.133 million bales of cotton were exported from the U.S. Only 275,000 bales left from Norhthern ports. If all that cotton was leaving from Southern ports and the South demanded so much in the way of imported goods, then why weren't those ships arriving with imports and loading with cotton? Source: Hunt's Merchant magazine and Commercial Review. As listed in Appendix 3 of the above mentioned book.

The North did not invade the South to abolish slavery.

You know what? You are not going to find a single, serious student of the rebellion who would dispute that statement. Not one, certainly not me. The North did not fight the war to end slavery, or preserve it. The North fought the war to preserve the country. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that there are two sides to the struggle, and if the North did not fight the war to preserve slavery it is a fact that the South launched the war to protect slavery, which was their reason for seceding in the first place. And all the revisionist Southron tales won't change what the men of the period said were their reasons for their actions.

I never said there was no tariff revenue after the South seceded. But it was minimal compared to the levies and taxes imposed on the citizenry and domestic businesses and operations (internal revenue). Before the South seceded more than 80% of the federal revenues came from tariffs; afterwards, but a fraction of what it had been. In 1864, by your own comment, revenue from tariffs was “the second most important source of federal income behind internal revenue.” Thus, obviously, federal income from tariffs had to have been less than 50%, as if it were any more it could not have been “second most”. In fact, it was substantially less than 50%, wasn’t it?

Your claim has been that the South generated the overwhelming majority of tariff revenue, and if that were true then yes, one would expect tariff revenue to fall. But in 1864 ttal government receipts were over $260 million and the tariff contributed about 40% of that. It was the second greatest source of revenue after internal revenue. If your claims be true federal tariff revenue should have dropped to a fraction of the pre-war amount not grown, because the U.S. did not have Southern exports and Southern demand for imported goods. By your own statements, growing to $102 million in three years should have been impossible. Yet that is what happened. Explain it.

Non-sequitur, I’ve noticed in your threads and posts that you’re real good at answering a question by asking another question, and you don’t seem to get around to well, answering the question posed.

And if that is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

Are you a Democrat?

Of course not. If I were a Democrat I'd be a confederate, wouldn't I?

104 posted on 03/09/2008 8:20:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

My God, but you are dense. It doesn’t make any difference at what port the tariff duties were collected, but who paid the tax (i.e., who was the purchaser of the goods). Southern interests were by far and large the major purchaser, thus Southern interests “paid the freight.” So, if you say that only $3 million in tariff revenue was collected at Southern ports and $42 million was collected at Northern ports it’s irrelevant to the argument as to who actually paid the tax (the issue is not WHERE the tax was paid or collected, but WHO paid it). Hell, that’s like saying that since St. Louis processes all the federal revenues from income taxes collected from all the states in its collection district, Missouri produced all those revenues. How ridiculous.

Why didn’t the South trade its agricultural goods with the North in exhange for manufactured goods? Two reasons: 1) There wasn’t much of a market for Southern goods in the North, as the North didn’t much need the South’s agricultural goods; 2) The profitable market that was available to Southern exporters (i.e., Europe) demanded a quid pro quo for the sale of its own goods (the fact that, at that time, European manufactured goods were superior and more numerous than much of what was manufactured in the North was just an added incentive, though the South did also buy Northern goods).

Why didn’t the North import many goods from Europe? Because the North, in developing its manufacturing capacity, was in competition with Europe for those same manufactured goods. It’s called protectionism.

Your question as to what the South demanded as far as trade goods from Europe that it couldn’t get from Northern factories is a red herring posit, and, if you were honest, you’d admit it. The Southern economy was based on agriculture, and it had to have a market for their goods, and the North was not a profitable market because they didn’t much need what the South was selling, so Southern interests had to sell their goods to someone who DID need and want them (i.e., Europe). But, Europe would not buy those agricultural goods (i.e., Southern goods) unless it in turn would be able to sell its marketable goods (i.e., manufactured goods). Thus, Southern exporters had to agree to import European goods in order to maintain a market for their agricultural goods (i.e., if they wanted to sell their products, thay had to agree to buy the products of their trade partners in Europe for the privilege). (The South did, though, buy some Northern goods, as stated previously.)

The South then had no choice but to buy trade goods from Europe, because it had to secure the market for its agricultural goods. THAT was the basis for the States’ Rights argument: The South believed the individual states should have the final say as to their economic lives and futures.

Even Northern newspapers admitted that the South seceded because of economics, as the “Boston Transcript” published in March, 1861 (paraphrased): “It is obvious the Southern states seceded for commercial independence...based on free trade.”

As for your comment that I was assigning 21st century economic theory to 19th century economic conditions is so breathtakingly stupid I was surprised that even you came up with it. Do you think the concept of free and balanced trade was non-existent prior to January 1, 2001? Are you that daft? Don’t you even know that the Founding Fathers of this country were greatly influenced by the economic theories of Adam Smith, and his economic treatises of the 18th century (especially his “Wealth of Nations,” which came out in 1776) were fundamental to their ideas as to how an American economy should be organized? Adam Smith’s economic model advanced the logic of free and balanced trade, as it would benefit all parties. America’s Founding Fathers embraced that with both feet. A good book on this (though the conclusion has been stated in countless scholarly works) is Roy Smith’s “Adam Smith and the Origins of American Enterprise: How the Founding Fathers Turned To A Great Economist’s Writings And Created The American Economy.”

Let’s talk about railroads. A railroad lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln (among whose clients, in the 1850s, were the Illinois Central, a huge company believed to be the biggest coporation on the planet in the 1850s; and the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific), was a big supporter of subsidizing railroads with federal monies. Unfortunately, the subsidizing of railroads was disastrously costly (in large part because of corruption), but Ol’ Abe made it a priority to continue the bankrupting program early on in his adminstration, and signed over public lands and other subsidies to Northern investors for their railroads. Also, prior to the Civil War, Northern interests were pushing Congress to bankroll a transcontinental railroad that would traverse the Northern states (incorporating rail systems already in place in, or to be improved upon, in the North, to link up with new tracks to be laid in the West). Southern members of Congress thought the route should be through the South, but since Northern business interests were more influential than Southern interests, and Northern Congressmen outnumbered Southern Congressmen, the South (again) got short shrift. The transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869. You can read much of that history in historian Dee Brown’s (he’s the guy who wrote “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee”) book “Hear The Lonesome Whistle Blow.”

It is well known that you are wholly and fauningly enthlralled by and with Abraham Lincoln. Where you take the position that Lincoln “saved” the Union, I suggest to you that he in fact destroyed it, along with the US Constitution. Prior to Lincoln the United States was a voluntary association of individual states, states which retained their various powers and authorities save for a few very limited and restrictive powers granted by them to a federal government. Lincoln never agreed with that concept; rather, he was an advocate of Henry Clay’s idea of a strong federal government at the expense of the sovereignty of the states. Lincoln is responsible for — because he set it in motion — the ubiquitous, all-encroaching, ever-restrictive, freedom-destroying leviathan that we know today as the federal government: The Founding Fathers NEVER intended, or expected, their beautiful dream of self-determination to morph into this monstrosity. FDR took the baton from Lincoln and ran with it, only to hand it off to LBJ. The final leg of that relay, which will spell the death knell of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave, could be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if either should — God forbid — ever ascend to the presidency. A very interesting book on Lincoln is Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln.” You probably won’t like it.


105 posted on 03/09/2008 2:00:14 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
My God, but you are dense.

No, just not willing to accept something that makes no sense as God's honest truth becaue the all knowing, all wise, all wonderful ought-six says it it.

It doesn’t make any difference at what port the tariff duties were collected, but who paid the tax (i.e., who was the purchaser of the goods). Southern interests were by far and large the major purchaser, thus Southern interests “paid the freight.”

If that is true then why weren't the goods brought to the Southern consumers through Southern ports? Why would they sit still for having the goods brought to New York, landed, taxed, reloaded, and then brought to Southern ports. Were they dense? Or just had no concept of money?

Why didn’t the South trade its agricultural goods with the North in exhange for manufactured goods? Two reasons: 1) There wasn’t much of a market for Southern goods in the North, as the North didn’t much need the South’s agricultural goods; 2) The profitable market that was available to Southern exporters (i.e., Europe) demanded a quid pro quo for the sale of its own goods (the fact that, at that time, European manufactured goods were superior and more numerous than much of what was manufactured in the North was just an added incentive, though the South did also buy Northern goods).

Hmmm. Here's a radical thought. Instead of a barter economy why not invent something to be used instead. You could make it out of, I don't know, gold or silver or something. Then instead of going to the store and whipping out a bale of cotton to pay for your manufactured goods you could use these metal things. We could call it...money! How about that, think it might work?

We're not talking middle ages here. Cotton growers weren't dense. Why should they take on the risks of getting cotton overseas when they could sell it to someone who would take the risk for them. It was a pretty advanced economy, with insurance and middlemen and finance sources and everything. Growers sold to brokers who sold to exporters who sent it abroad. And then they took that funny metal stuff (money I think it was called?) and bought what they wanted, be it manufactured goods or slaves or land or whatever. And that money stuff was just as good as in the North as it was in the South.

Why didn’t the North import many goods from Europe? Because the North, in developing its manufacturing capacity, was in competition with Europe for those same manufactured goods. It’s called protectionism.

And it hit North and South equally. But you would have us believe that Southerners really, really wanted to pay more for their goods than the Northerners did. And you call me dense.

Your question as to what the South demanded as far as trade goods from Europe that it couldn’t get from Northern factories is a red herring posit, and, if you were honest, you’d admit it.

No, it's a legitimate question which you are incapable of answering because none of your Southron myths fit the question. You can't answer it because you have absolutely no idea. And if you tried to answer then you'd have to stop and think "Just what the heck DID they import anyway?" So take a swing at it. The South exported millions of dollars in cotton. According to you Europe demanded quid pro quo and a balance of trade. So in your world a dollar of cotton had to result in a dollar of imports. So just what the hell were they buying? Never mind the fact that none of it was going to their ports, what did they consume?

Even Northern newspapers admitted that the South seceded because of economics, as the “Boston Transcript” published in March, 1861 (paraphrased): “It is obvious the Southern states seceded for commercial ndependence...based on free trade

Even Southerners admitted that the South left over slavery, as Henry Benning, Georgia representative to the Virginia secession convention, said: "What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken."

Let’s talk about railroads.

Yes let's, and your claim that federal funds subsidized Northern railroads. I've noticed that you haven't been able to answer that, to come up with a single railroad that was subsidized with federal funds in the North or any railroad denied such subsidies in the South. Not even the Illinois Central. The best you can come up with is the transcontinental railroad, a post-rebellion initiative. So come on, ought-six. You made the claim, let's see your evidence. You claimed that the federal government was taking all that money, stealing all that money from the South and spending it on Northern railroads and infrastructure. Well, what? Which railroads? What infrastructure? You can't come up with any ideas of what manufactured goods the South was importing, can you at least back up your claim on the railroads and infrastructure? Any of it?

It is well known that you are wholly and fauningly enthlralled by and with Abraham Lincoln.

And it is also well known that you loath the man. That no lie is too big, no tale too wild, no myth too outrageous for you to repeat if it makes Lincoln look bad. You will, literally, believe anything

!!! South paid 80% of the tariffs? Sounds good to you. Spending all the money on Northern railroads? What the heck, why not? Never mind the fact that you cannot provide anything to support your wild-ass claims. You don't need any, we're expected to take your word as gospel simply because the great and wonderful ought-six said it was true.

Prior to Lincoln the United States was a voluntary association of individual states, states which retained their various powers and authorities save for a few very limited and restrictive powers granted by them to a federal government. Lincoln never agreed with that concept; rather, he was an advocate of Henry Clay’s idea of a strong federal government at the expense of the sovereignty of the states. Lincoln is responsible for — because he set it in motion — the ubiquitous, all-encroaching, ever-restrictive, freedom-destroying leviathan that we know today as the federal government: The Founding Fathers NEVER intended, or expected, their beautiful dream of self-determination to morph into this monstrosity. FDR took the baton from Lincoln and ran with it, only to hand it off to LBJ. The final leg of that relay, which will spell the death knell of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave, could be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if either should — God forbid — ever ascend to the presidency.

All because you say so, huh? That's the story of your posts, something is correct because you say it is.

A very interesting book on Lincoln is Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln.” You probably won’t like it.

I've read it. I love good fiction, and while I wouldn't classify Tommy's screed as 'good fiction' it did have it's amusing moments.

106 posted on 03/09/2008 3:48:12 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Acually, if you look at tariff payments, they were mostly being paid in the northern states.

That makes the rest of your rant false, and you delusional.


107 posted on 03/09/2008 7:51:26 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“Acually, if you look at tariff payments, they were mostly being paid in the northern states. That makes the rest of your rant false, and you delusional.”

They were collected in both Northern and Southern ports, but WHERE they were paid (collected) is irrelevant; it’s WHO paid them that is the issue. Refer to my analogy of St. Louis and the collection of income taxes. There are several IRS collection centers (St. Louis used to be a major one, but Kansas City has now taken over its operations): Atlanta; Cincinnati; Austin; Ogden, UT; Andover, MA; Fresno, CA. Now, are you telling me that all those filers whose collection center was, say, Ogden, UT, didn’t actually pay those taxes, but rather Ogden did? Now, who is delusional?


108 posted on 03/10/2008 8:25:46 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion; snuffy smiff; slow5poh; EdReform; TheZMan; Texas Mulerider; Oorang; ...

Dixie Ping


109 posted on 03/10/2008 8:27:47 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

I’m still waiting on an explanation of how 80% of the federal budget went to internal improvements (i.e. railroad subsidies) in the north when records from the time show almost half going to support the army and navy alone.


110 posted on 03/10/2008 12:29:26 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

The ex-slave pictured was named ‘Gordon’. Doctors confirmed he suffered from a medical condition that exaggerated the scarring. And the overseer of the plantation (in Mississippi IIRC) was a yankee.


111 posted on 03/10/2008 2:12:10 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

Georgia, Tennessee and other Souther states also awarded blacks military pensions and honoured them for their service.


112 posted on 03/10/2008 2:14:49 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If that is true then wouldn't one expect federal revenue to dry up once the rebellion began?

It did. Then picked back up as Yankees were forced to import products previously obtained duty-free from Southerners. It's simple economics.

113 posted on 03/10/2008 2:21:41 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
It did. Then picked back up as Yankees were forced to import products previously obtained duty-free from Southerners.

Obviously. The revenue collections didn't drop by 80% or more, which one would expect them to do if the South was accounting for that percentage of tariff revenue. And your claim that the North was forced to import goods previously obtained from the South cannot be true because ought-six claimed in reply 102 that the North was not a profitable market for Southern goods prior to the rebellion.

It's simple economics.

But more complex than you would like us to believe.

114 posted on 03/10/2008 2:37:15 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Doctors confirmed he suffered from a medical condition that exaggerated the scarring.

Keloid cysts may exaggerate the scarring but they do require an abrasion be present first before forming. The man was flogged at some time.

And the overseer of the plantation (in Mississippi IIRC) was a yankee.

Do you have a source for that? The Yankee overseer, I mean.

115 posted on 03/10/2008 2:45:10 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Obviously. The revenue collections didn't drop by 80% or more, which one would expect them to do if the South was accounting for that percentage of tariff revenue.

Dude, it's not as if the North waited a year BEFORE having to replace the products they previously received from the Southern states - it was barely 3 1/2 months into the year. Even then revenues fell sharply the 1st year.

And your claim that the North was forced to import goods previously obtained from the South cannot be true because ought-six claimed in reply 102 that the North was not a profitable market for Southern goods prior to the rebellion.

I wonder where all that cotton went the fed yankee mills? That same cotton that Lincoln was so desperate for during the war.

But more complex than you would like us to believe.

For some of us it's simple, sorry that your degree didn't cover it.

116 posted on 03/10/2008 2:51:28 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Courtesy ping to 115 and 116.


117 posted on 03/10/2008 2:52:35 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Dude, it's not as if the North waited a year BEFORE having to replace the products they previously received from the Southern states - it was barely 3 1/2 months into the year. Even then revenues fell sharply the 1st year.

OK, Dude, what was it the U.S. was replacing? And from where?

I wonder where all that cotton went the fed yankee mills? That same cotton that Lincoln was so desperate for during the war.

I'm just repeating what ought-six said - the North was not a profitable market for the South's goods. I'm aware that a fair amount of cotton was consumed by the North, but apparently not enough to make the North a good market. It is indisputable that the overwhelming majority of Southern cotton did go overseas, over 3.1 million bales in the year prior to the rebellion.

But given that Europe, primarily England, consumed the bulk of the South's cotton then how did the North find an adequate alternate source and the UK didn't?

For some of us it's simple, sorry that your degree didn't cover it.

Or perhaps I just can't suspend by disbelief to the extent that you can.

118 posted on 03/10/2008 3:00:41 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“But given that Europe, primarily England, consumed the bulk of the South’s cotton then how did the North find an adequate alternate source and the UK didn’t?”

England did. When cotton exports from America were greatly restricted due to the Union blockades, England turned to Egypt and the Caribbean for its cotton needs. Also, some cotton shipments from the South still did manage to run the blockades, but only a fraction of what it had previously shipped.


119 posted on 03/10/2008 4:06:13 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
England did. When cotton exports from America were greatly restricted due to the Union blockades, England turned to Egypt and the Caribbean for its cotton needs. Also, some cotton shipments from the South still did manage to run the blockades, but only a fraction of what it had previously shipped.

Not nearly enough, though. And even with the blockade runners and supplies from Egypt and India the British textile industry was in a depression for the duration of the rebellion.

But we still have the conflicting stories between you and 4CJ. He says that the Union tariff income rose trying to replace that which they could no longer get from the South. You said that there wasn't enough demand for Southern goods in the North to make it a profitable market for them. So which is it?

120 posted on 03/10/2008 6:10:34 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Rebeleye
[Quoted Screed] "Their concern for the rights of black Southerners is particularly underwhelming."

This is just another way of saying, "these people are a nullity, and their ideas, values, and hopes are all nullities; we cast these people away because they are racists" -- the old, hostile liberal ad hominem that disproves their claims to liberality, and shows them to be something rather different, and their politics likewise.

It's a little like putting on an armband and standing up and yelling "Jued suess!" as a way of ending a discussion.

121 posted on 03/11/2008 2:24:43 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
It was, in fact, a rebellion.

There was no rebellion. But, you knew that.

122 posted on 03/11/2008 2:26:24 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
There was no rebellion. But, you knew that.

Yes there was. Southern states. April 1861 to mid-1865. How could you miss it? It was in all the papers.

123 posted on 03/11/2008 3:57:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
With this particular image we know the name, or in this case names, of the person in it and the year it was taken. But without that knowledge could we tell if the victim was a slave from the north or south? Or a slave at all, as whippings were a common enough punishment for crime even as late as the 1860’s. General Grant had a teamster who was beating a horse tied to a tree and whipped. Cruelty has no border, no line of demarcation, no color or nationality.
124 posted on 03/11/2008 6:31:24 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
NOBODY has been better at the historical revisionist game than Southern historians

Not really. Southerners have been consistent in their view of what happened ever since Jefferson Davis wrote his first memorandum. Richard Henry Lee never, ever consented to the title of "rebel" and vituperated against the use of the word, which he correctly saw as Northern war propaganda.

The masterwork of revisionism has belonged to the Northern Federalist lawyers who "rewrote" the meaning of the Constitution and the Union it ordained, ascending ladders in the middle of the night like Orwell's little pig Squealer, to paint out and revise key articles of the Constitution.

The Jeffersonian view of the Constitution is the correct one -- the one the Bill of Rights guaranteed. No tenth amendment, no ratification, no Union -- that was the compromise the Antifederalists held out for and got.

In case you didn't remember, the Antifederalists numbered among them Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe -- two future presidents and the first signer of the Declaration of Independence. Modern schoolboy history texts minimize the Antifederalists as they propound their triumphalist view of unbroken, victorious marches from Federalism to Lincolnism to Union victory in the Civil War; but the Antifederalists were the liberty party, and their eventual assent the true palladium of Union, the sine qua non of the Union's consummation being the Tenth Amendment.

The reserved powers are just that, reserved powers that can be resumed. If you like, I can link you to the Unionist antithesis, Lalor's 1899 Cyclopedia, that presents the polluted triumphalist view.

125 posted on 03/11/2008 2:51:52 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; ought-six
Even Southerners admitted that the South left over slavery, as Henry Benning.....

Overgeneralization. But then, you do that all the time. Quote one guy and then say he accounts for everybody.

We've been over this before. You want me to quote you the Texas secession declaration again, with its statement of causes? I analyzed it for you before -- slavery figured in the reasons for separation, but so did a number of other motives. We've discussed them all.

How about South Carolina's call? You've seen that before, too, but you continue to insist "it was all about slavery" -- the Red historians' propaganda cry. Slothful induction is what we have here, and bad faith in argument.

Your tautological table-pounding for Unionist propaganda claims won't persuade anyone who knows how to read.

And you have some bad bedfellows, in those Marxist historians, Eric Foner and James MacPherson. But you never wonder whose work you're doing for them -- for them and their patron, "Bubba" Clinton.

"Bubba" Clinton. Slick Willie hisself. For someone who doesn't like the South or Southerners, you sure don't mind sleeping with one of the worst examples, do you?

126 posted on 03/11/2008 3:20:22 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yes there was. Southern states.

Free States don't rebel. Or if they do, tell me who was their Master. You?

127 posted on 03/11/2008 3:21:49 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Free States don't rebel.

The Southern states did.

128 posted on 03/11/2008 3:22:32 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The North fought the war to preserve the country. That is a fact.

No, it didn't. It fought to preserve the Union, and its own political predominance in it. And no, your assertion isn't a fact.

We love the Union because . . . it renders us now the equal of the greatest European Power, and in another half century, will make us the greatest, richest, and most powerful people on the face of the earth."

--New York Courier and Enquirer, Dec. 1, 1860
Quoted in K. Stampp, ed., The Causes of the Civil War, Prentice-Hall rev. ed. 1974, p. 55.

The British view was a little more nuanced, but compact enough:

To slavery we have ever entertained the most rooted aversion. Not all the valour, not all the success of the South, has ever blinded us to this black spot on their fair escocheon. But even tainted as they are with this foul stain they have commanded our admiration and our sympathy from the gallantry with which they have maintained their cause, and from the obvious truth that the struggle was for separation on the one part and compulsory retention on the other, the emancipation or continued slavery of the negro being only used as means to forward the ends of the North.

-- The Times of London, Jan. 15, 1863
Quoted in Mitgang, A Press Portrait of Abraham Lincoln.

129 posted on 03/11/2008 4:14:05 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No, they didn't.

They were free. Their secession was constitutionally protected, and they seceded by lawful acts of the People -- Arkansas excepted, whose legislature exceeded its powers.

130 posted on 03/11/2008 4:16:11 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Quote one guy and then say he accounts for everybody.

I can quote a lot of guys, L. Here:

"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depoulation and barbarism." - South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keitt, 1860

"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." - Lawrence Keitt "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery." - Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.

"[Recruiting slaves into the army] is abolition doctrine ... the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." - Editorial, Jan 1865, North Carolina Standard

"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865

As the last and crowning act of insult and outrage upon the people of the South, the citizens of the Northern States, by overwhelming majorities, on the 6th day of November last, elected Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin, President and Vice President of the United States. Whilst it may be admitted that the mere election of any man to the Presidency, is not, per se, a sufficient cause for a dissolution of the Union; yet, when the issues upon, and circumstances under which he was elected, are properly appreciated and understood, the question arises whether a due regard to the interest, honor, and safety of their citizens, in view of this and all the other antecedent wrongs and outrages, do not render it the imperative duty of the Southern States to resume the powers they have delegated to the Federal Government, and interpose their sovereignty for the protection of their citizens.

What, then are the circumstances under which, and the issues upon which he was elected? His own declarations, and the current history of the times, but too plainly indicate he was elected by a Northern sectional vote, against the most solemn warnings and protestations of the whole South. He stands forth as the representative of the fanaticism of the North, which, for the last quarter of a century, has been making war upon the South, her property, her civilization, her institutions, and her interests; as the representative of that party which overrides all Constitutional barriers, ignores the obligations of official oaths, and acknowledges allegiance to a higher law than the Constitution, striking down the sovereignty and equality of the States, and resting its claims to popular favor upon the one dogma, the Equality of the Races, white and black."
-- Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world.
--Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession

SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Louisiana

This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last. -- Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia Convention

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. -- Texas Declaration of the causes of secession

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention

Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?

Gentlemen, I have thus very rapidly endeavored to group before you the causes which have produced the action of the people of South Carolina.
-- Speech of John Preston to the Virginia Convention

This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us.

If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable ---
-- Address of William L. Harris of Mississippi

But I trust I may not be intrusive if I refer for a moment to the circumstances which prompted South Carolina in the act of her own immediate secession, in which some have charged a want of courtesy and respect for her Southern sister States. She had not been disturbed by discord or conflict in the recent canvass for president or vice-president of the United States. She had waited for the result in the calm apprehension that the Black Republican party would succeed. She had, within a year, invited her sister Southern States to a conference with her on our mutual impending danger. Her legislature was called in extra session to cast her vote for president and vice-president, through electors, of the United States and before they adjourned the telegraphic wires conveyed the intelligence that Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to equality with ourselves and our children, and coupled with all this was the act that, from our friends in our sister Southern States, we were urged in the most earnest terms to secede at once, and prepared as we were, with not a dissenting voice in the State, South Carolina struck the blow and we are now satisfied that none have struck too soon, for when we are now threatened with the sword and the bayonet by a Democratic administration for the exercise of this high and inalienable right, what might we meet under the dominion of such a party and such a president as Lincoln and his minions. -- Speech of John McQueen, the Secession Commissioner from South Carolina to Texas

History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. -- Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

We've been over this before. You want me to quote you the Texas secession declaration again, with its statement of causes? I analyzed it for you before -- slavery figured in the reasons for separation, but so did a number of other motives. We've discussed them all.

Go ahead, bring it up. What's the first reason they bring up? The single most mentioned reason? The institution in which Texas identifies itseflf? Slavery. An institution "...her people intended should exist in all future time." Every other cause mentioned existed before Lincon was elected, some for decades before Lincoln was elected. Those problems had existed under Democratic presidents, Southern presidents, Southern leaders in the Congress, and none of them had caused Texas to secede or threaten it. But elect a president on a platform totally against the expansion of slavery and Texas can't leave fast enough. And you want us to believe it was coincidence.

How about South Carolina's call? You've seen that before, too, but you continue to insist "it was all about slavery" -- the Red historians' propaganda cry. Slothful induction is what we have here, and bad faith in argument.

Yes, and when you have no arguement to offer and no logic to back your case up with, accuse your opposition of being commies or liberals. It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Your whole arguement is compromised by your asinine attempt at labeling anyone opposed to the Southern rebellion as a communist. Talk about bad faith arguement.

"Bubba" Clinton. Slick Willie hisself. For someone who doesn't like the South or Southerners, you sure don't mind sleeping with one of the worst examples, do you?

Ah yes, Bill Clinton. A solid son of the South. Clinton. LBJ. Carter. Jefferson Davis. Not a dime's worth of difference between the lot.

131 posted on 03/11/2008 4:58:17 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

They were free.

Tell me, L. Why is it that there were only 7 free states in the U.S. in 1860 and all the rest of the states were subservient captives to their wishes?

132 posted on 03/11/2008 5:02:15 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
No, it didn't. It fought to preserve the Union, and its own political predominance in it.

I'll grant you that it was to preserve the union of states, and keep this country whole and unbroken. As our founding father's passed it on to us.

And no, your assertion isn't a fact.

Neither is your's. Especially that lame 'political predominance' part.

But even tainted as they are with this foul stain they have commanded our admiration and our sympathy from the gallantry with which they have maintained their cause, and from the obvious truth that the struggle was for separation on the one part and compulsory retention on the other, the emancipation or continued slavery of the negro being only used as means to forward the ends of the North.

But not enough admiration to grant diplomatic recognition, was there? Not enough sympathy to align themselves with that 'foul stain' of slavery? Come on, lentulusgracchus. Britain knew what the confederacy was rebelling over. Why can't you admit it too?

133 posted on 03/11/2008 5:07:06 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“You said that there wasn’t enough demand for Southern goods in the North to make it a profitable market for them. So which is it?”

Prior to the Civil War, the main product the North bought from the South was cotton (which was used in the New England textile mills, especially in Lowell, MA: Remember, Northern industries wanted to compete with European industries). But that was a fraction of the quantity the South exported to Europe. Moreover, some of the Southern plantations were owned by Northern bankers and investors, so any cotton from those operations that went to New England mills would have equated to Northerners paying themselves rather than paying Southerners or Southern interests. Also, many Southern plantations were insured by Northern insurance companies (who didn’t have to pay off when the plantations were burned or destroyed by Union troops).

A very interesting book that addresses much of this is “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited From Slavery,” by Anne Farrow. She and a couple others began their project to research the reparations-demanding activists’ claim of insurance companies making money off of slavery, and thus those companies should pay descendants of slaves reparations (you know, the old Jesse Jackson shakedown). Anne Farrow (and sorry, but I forget the other author or authors; I remembered her name because it reminded me of the Fay Raye character’s name in “King Kong”: Ann Darrow) was very surpised at what the research uncovered; specifically, that Northern interests were VERY much involved in slavery, up to and even during the Civil War.


134 posted on 03/11/2008 5:51:51 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Yes there was. Southern states. April 1861 to mid-1865. How could you miss it? It was in all the papers.”

Actually, in the classic sense it was NOT a rebellion, as they did not try to resist or overthrow the existing government or authority. They never tried to overthrow Lincoln’s Administration (in fact, when some Confederate officers wanted to march on Washington after the first Bull Run, and even later, they were rebuffed by their leaders, who admonished them that the goal of secession was not to conquer the North or overthrow and replace its government, but for the Confederacy to be its own independent and sovereign nation, even capable of being on good terms with the North, which the Confederacy expected would retain the name of the United States of America). What the South wanted, and what it accomplished, was a clean and simple divorce. The divorce did not get messy until April, 1861 in Charleston harbor. There never would have been a Civil War if Lincoln had ordered Anderson at Sumpter to evacuate the fort (which was also the main tariff collecting center for Charleston Harbor before the War). Other Union forces in the South either gave up their posts and returned north, or headed out west or joined the Confederates. The Confederacy, understandably, did not want foreign troops on its soil. When foreign (Union) troops refused to leave, they were fired upon. Licoln made hostilities inevitable by trying to poke the South in the eye at Sumpter. Lincoln wanted a fight, because he wanted to punish the Confederacy and wanted to force the seceding states back into the Union. Remember, there were still four states that had not seceded and joined the Confederacy by the time of Sumpter, but Lincoln’s provocation at Sumpter, and his call up of troops, made up their minds for them, and they seceded. Those states were Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas. I don’t mention either Kentucky or Missouri, because, although they voted to secede after Sumpter and the call-up, they never actually did secede.


135 posted on 03/11/2008 6:33:10 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Actually, in the classic sense it was NOT a rebellion, as they did not try to resist or overthrow the existing government or authority.

Rebellion is defined by Merriam-Webster as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." By definition the Southern action was a classic rebellion.

...in fact, when some Confederate officers wanted to march on Washington after the first Bull Run, and even later, they were rebuffed by their leaders...

Actually you have that backwards. In his book, "Jefferson Davis, American", William J. Cooper relates the details of the post-battle conference between Davis and his two generals, Johnston and Beauregard. According to Cooper, it was Davis who pressed for the army to advance on Washington and it was Johnston and Beauregard who argued that the confederate army was as disorganized in victory as the Union army was in defeat, and advance was impossible.

What the South wanted, and what it accomplished, was a clean and simple divorce.

A divorce is a mutual decision, sanctioned by a court of law, and where both sides have a chance to have their interests protected. That is not a description of the Southern action. They didn't divorce, they walked out. They walked away from responsibility for their share of the national debt and obligations the country had entered into while they were part, and with every bit of federal property that they could get their hands on. And no concern was paid for the rights and interests of the remaining states.

There never would have been a Civil War if Lincoln had ordered Anderson at Sumpter to evacuate the fort...

Why should he have? It was a U.S. fort.

...There never would have been a Civil War if Lincoln had ordered Anderson at Sumpter to evacuate the fort (which was also the main tariff collecting center for Charleston Harbor before the War).

That is complete nonsense. Sumter wasn't complete prior to the rebellion. There were no troops there. No customs agents. Nothing but civilians working on the fort and a single officer supervising them. Not one dollar of tariff revenue was ever collected at Sumter. It was a military facility not a government one. Tariffs were collected and the customs house on Bay Street. But nice to see that the Southern myth machine is still working.

Other Union forces in the South either gave up their posts and returned north, or headed out west or joined the Confederates.

Again, complete nonsense. The South either seized empty facilities or, as in the case of Texas, took the facilities away from the troops with the connivance of the commanding general.

The Confederacy, understandably, did not want foreign troops on its soil.

Understandable perhaps, except that Sumter wasn't their soil. It was the property of the federal government, built on land deeded free and clear to the federal government by the South Carolina legislature. The confederacy had absolutely no claim to the property.

Lincoln wanted a fight, because he wanted to punish the Confederacy and wanted to force the seceding states back into the Union.

So your claim is that the southern leadership was so gullible it fell for Lincoln's trap?

Remember, there were still four states that had not seceded and joined the Confederacy by the time of Sumpter...

Which kind of answers the question why Davis wanted and needed his war, doesn't it?

136 posted on 03/11/2008 7:20:37 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Prior to the Civil War, the main product the North bought from the South was cotton (which was used in the New England textile mills, especially in Lowell, MA: Remember, Northern industries wanted to compete with European industries). But that was a fraction of the quantity the South exported to Europe.

Agreed. Which means that 4CJs claim that the tariff revenue went up because the North had to replace all that stuff they bought from the South prior to the rebellion can't be true. They got little other than agricultural products, mainly cotton, and there was no other source that they could replace it with. Even the UK, with their alternate sources, couldn't.

...that Northern interests were VERY much involved in slavery, up to and even during the Civil War.

Again, I agree. The South produced little other than agricutural produce. They didn't establish their own financial sector or retail sector or transportation sector, they chose to rely on others for that. The Southern plantation owner borrowed money for his seed, land and slaves from Northern bankers, insured them through Northern insurance firms, sold the cotton to brokers many of whom were Northern, shipped their goods on Northern ships and on railroads built and run on rails and equipment produced in the North. They could not operate without services provided by Northerners. And Northerners, in turn, made a lot of money off an industry dependent on slavery.

137 posted on 03/12/2008 5:32:54 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Rebeleye

It’s always nice to know that sell-outs take full advantage of free speech. Doesn’t she also know that her whining liberal rant absolutely shuts off a large audience (except for the die hard Anti Southerners)? She should also know that she has the right to remain silent, and anything she says can and will be used against her.


138 posted on 03/12/2008 9:59:49 AM PDT by Colt .45 (Navy Veteran - Thermo-Nuclear Landscapers Inc. "Need a change of scenery? We deliver!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Which kind of answers the question why Davis wanted and needed his war, doesn’t it?”

What possible reason would Davis have had to desire a war? The LAST thing the Confederacy wanted was a war, especially a protracted one. The Confederacy’s focus after its creation was to get some foreign governments to recognize it and engage in trade. A war would (and did) make potential partners reluctant to do anything but sit back and see which way the winds of war were blowing. No foreign country would have recognized the Confederacy if it looked like the North would prevail (and the longer the war went on, the more clear it was that the South could not win). Had there not been a war both England and France would have recognized the Confededracy as an independent and sovereign nation, just as they would have recognized a diminished United States as an independent and sovereign nation.

Davis neither wanted nor needed the war. In fact, he thought it would be disastrous to to the Confederacy, no matter which side won. But, once war was thrust on the Confederacy by Lincoln’s intemperate actions, he had no option but to fight.

And, oh, I don’t “have it backwards” about some Confederate officers wanting to march on Washington. They were, as you pointed out, rebuffed by their superiors. As for Davis, he wanted the war over and quickly, and thought that a genuine physical threat to Washington would have caused Lincoln to say “enough is enough” and call off his war, in which case the Confederate troops would have returned to Virginia and both countries would get on with the task of getting used to the new arrangement.

The argument that Lincoln fought the war to restore the Union is accurate on its face, but he didn’t want restoration because he liked the South, he wanted to restore the South to the Union because he wanted the revenues that the South had generated. Hell, he even said he’d happily welcome the Southern states back into the Union, slaves and slavery and all, if it would mean the resumption of trade with Europe, et als, but under the conditions that existed at the time of secession (i.e., a return to the status quo, which were exactly the conditions the Southern states seceded to escape) with all the economic benefits that brought. But, when the Confederacy resisted Lincoln’s militancy and ultimata, he got pissed and wanted to punish the South, and force it back into the Union. He acted just like a petulant child.

The Southern states had far more right and legitimacy to secede than the colonies did in 1776. Yet, somehow I don’t see you waxing indignant about the colonies seceding from Britain like you do about Southern states seceding from the Union. The centralized federalism desired by Lincoln ultimately rendered meaningless the 10th Amendment, and post-war amendments to the Constitution destroyed the Republic (or “benign” federalism) as envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers. The result of the North’s victory in the Civil War was that the individual states, rather than being equal partners with the federal government as was established by the Consitution, became subordinate to and subservient to an all-powerful national government. So, you see, the real tragedy of the Civil War is that in winning, the North destroyed the United states as a republic.


139 posted on 03/12/2008 5:48:08 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
What possible reason would Davis have had to desire a war?

Population. Industry. He was president of a rump state where there were almost as many slaves as free people and which had no industrial base at all. Davis believed that if he could get the other 8 slave states to join his confederacy then he'd have the population he needed to beat the North, and at least a semblance of an industrial base. And what better way to get them off the fence than start a war and force them to choose sides? As it turns out he miscalculated. He only got half the states and he lost his war.

In fact, he thought it would be disastrous to to the Confederacy, no matter which side won.

Then why start one over Sumter? Especially when his own secretary of state pointed out the folly of his actions?

And, oh, I don’t “have it backwards” about some Confederate officers wanting to march on Washington. They were, as you pointed out, rebuffed by their superiors. As for Davis, he wanted the war over and quickly, and thought that a genuine physical threat to Washington would have caused Lincoln to say “enough is enough” and call off his war, in which case the Confederate troops would have returned to Virginia and both countries would get on with the task of getting used to the new arrangement.

Fine. I gave you my source, you give me your's.

The argument that Lincoln fought the war to restore the Union is accurate on its face, but he didn’t want restoration because he liked the South, he wanted to restore the South to the Union because he wanted the revenues that the South had generated.

Nonsense.

Yet, somehow I don’t see you waxing indignant about the colonies seceding from Britain like you do about Southern states seceding from the Union.

Indignation comes when people like you try and paint the Southern cause as something it was not. The American Revolution was not a legal act, and the Founding Father's didn't pretend it was. They knew their actions were a rebellion, that they would have to fight for their independence, and that if they failed then they would be hung as traitors. Southerners, on the other hand, incorrectly insist that their secession was not a rebellion, are indignent that the Union dared to oppose their illegal acts, complain that they lost, and seem amazed when someone points out that all their leaders could have been hung for treason. That's the difference.

The Southern states had far more right and legitimacy to secede than the colonies did in 1776.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! The colonists had no representation in government, the South was over-represented. The colonists had no say in their destiny, the South had run the government for most of the country's history to date. The election of Lincoln was constitutional and the South threw a hissy-fit and tried to walk out. If you place that on the same level as the causes our Founding Father's rebelled over then you, sir, are insane.

140 posted on 03/12/2008 6:59:19 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
don't confuse N-S & the other members of "the DAMNyankee coven" with the FACTS. they've drunk so much of the DY Kool-Aid, that the TRUTH would make them sick. further, they just cannot comprehend that what they were told was INTENTIONALLY designed to DECEIVE the "students".

it has been my experience that NONE of the DYs here can understood the TRUTH, as they've been LIED TO, made FOOLS of & just cannot admit that they've been VICTIMIZED by KNOWING liars.

i'm reminded, as i write these lines, of the comment of one of the DYs a couple of years ago===> If you're correct, it means that everything i ever learned in school was a lie AND that my family were the oppressors in the Civil War.

i said, "EXACTLY TRUE!"

free dixie,sw

141 posted on 03/12/2008 7:33:10 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Come on, lentulusgracchus. Britain knew what the confederacy was rebelling over. Why can't you admit it too?

What's the matter, dude -- can't you read? You just quoted it! After I quoted it! That's twice!

the obvious truth that the struggle was for separation on the one part and compulsory retention on the other

The Times laid out plain, in that selfsame 'graf you cited and quoted, both the reason, and the pretext, for the Civil War.

Or I should say, Lincoln's rationale -- his second of two -- for the war. When the cost in bodies was skyrocketing, he needed to "elevate his game" from forcible repatriation of the departed States, to a "liberation crusade". As a practical, down-to-earth political measure, of the type that could be appreciated by the likes of Thurlow Weed and Boss Tweed alike.

142 posted on 03/12/2008 9:26:42 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Especially that lame 'political predominance' part.

With the country divided on sectional lines and the National Democracy (party) in shambles, Lincoln was the master of the North. He dictated its politics and its government for four years. He'd split the country in two, and he had the bigger piece -- ownership of the House of Representatives, and, with the admission of Kansas in 1861, a majority in the Senate as well, as long as he could keep the country divided on sectional rather than old party lines.

143 posted on 03/12/2008 9:30:55 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You ran away from the abortion thread. I wondered where you went. Picking on mentals again.
So I take it you conceded the argument and went off to fight the Civil War again?
144 posted on 03/12/2008 9:38:28 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Breezed right by this part, didn't you?

"To slavery we have ever entertained the most rooted aversion. Not all the valour, not all the success of the South, has ever blinded us to this black spot on their fair escocheon. But even tainted as they are with this foul stain..."

The Palmerston government wouldn't recognize the confederacy so long as they retained their connection with slavery. Which meant that the Palmerston government would never recognize the confederacy.

145 posted on 03/13/2008 3:55:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
You ran away from the abortion thread.

Ran? No. Got bored dealing with your conspiracy theories.

146 posted on 03/13/2008 3:56:09 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
... in government, the South was over-represented.

I have seen you post this before. Are you saying that the counting of slaves as 3/5th's of a person gave slaves states too many Representatives? If so, I would agree. If not you have it backwards, for the real reason the south seceded no matter what was said or printed. The population of the north had risen to the point that south had lost it's power to control and even be equal with the northern states. This was proved by the election of Lincoln/ Hamblin, without even the pretense of campaigning in the south. Before there had been an unwritten power sharing arrangement in the executive branch: southern president, northern vice president or vice versa. The writing was now on the wall in clear bold, block type. YOU NO LONGER MATTER

If all they really cared about was protecting slavery they could have stayed in the union and helped pass the Corwin Amendment, or some other deviation of it.
147 posted on 03/13/2008 5:04:09 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: smug
Are you saying that the counting of slaves as 3/5th's of a person gave slaves states too many Representatives?

Look back at the Dred Scott decision. If blacks were not and could never be citizens, then free or slave they did not deserve representation in Congress. So the South shouldn't have even had the 3/5ths total.

The population of the north had risen to the point that south had lost it's power to control and even be equal with the northern states.

And what in the Constitution guaranteed the South the right to control the Northern states, much less be equal to them?

Before there had been an unwritten power sharing arrangement in the executive branch: southern president, northern vice president or vice versa.

And what prominent Southern Republican was available to run with Lincoln in 1860?

If all they really cared about was protecting slavery they could have stayed in the union and helped pass the Corwin Amendment, or some other deviation of it.

The Corwin Amendment had a fatal flaw that the South would not have stood for - it protected slavery only where it existed and did not protect the expansion of slavery into the territories. Nor would any amendment protecting the expansion of slavery ever pass out of the House. So the South did leave, and the did leave to protect their institution of slavery, and in the process adopted a constitution that protected slavery in ways never imagined in the real Constitution. The confederate constitution specifically guaranteed slave ownership, slavery in the territories, slave imports, and most likely guaranteed that an amendment ending slavery was impossible to pass.

148 posted on 03/13/2008 6:16:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
The Southern states had far more right and legitimacy to secede than the colonies did in 1776.

Let's get back to this for a moment. You said, "The centralized federalism desired by Lincoln..." was a stronger reason for rebellion than total lack of any representation in government. Can you specify exactly what it was that Lincoln was espousing that made the Southern actions necessary? I've read the Republican party platform. I've read Lincoln's speeches. And I'm not sure what it is that trumped 'no taxation without representation'.

149 posted on 03/13/2008 9:07:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
pardon me, but your thesis is FALSE. thus your conclusions are also FALSE.

the union was not & is not "indivisible".

the south had every right to leave the union, when faced with the TYRANNY of the northern financial/social/industrial elites and the "looming dictatorship" of lincoln & his merry band of thugs/criminals/cheap, scheming, politicans & south-HATERS.

unless you can PROVE that ANY of the individual states EVER ceded their RIGHT to depart the union "on their own motion" (for any/no reason), your position & that of the RADICAL REVISIONISTS/unionists is SILLY & as PHONY as the "one nation,indivisible ------" part of "the pledge of allegiance".

free dixie,sw

150 posted on 03/13/2008 9:18:39 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. Thomas Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson