Posted on 01/04/2009 2:29:32 PM PST by NCjim
I didn’t say that the war was wholly about slavery. But there was a powerful slave regime in the South, and it did impact the decision of the Southern States to leave the Union. And as I said above, I have a hard time understanding the motivations of the actors in precipitating the war.
OK so let's look at that, and let's even pretend that your imaginary 6% tariff was true. Why would goods destined for Northern consumers go to Southern ports? Assuming the South did levy a tariff on them then they would have to also pay the Northern tariff once they crossed the border. So where it the sense in that? What idiot would route their goods to Southern ports so they could be taxed twice?
See, I mentioned the Northern tariff. Happy?
And every point at which anyone wanted to float a boat across the river - which would be just about everywhere given a difference in tariff rates as high as thirty percent. Rome destroyed the commerce of Rhodes with an eight percent tariff differential - just for comparison.
Just to jog your memory, Kentucky remained in the Union so your Ohio River scenario doesn't apply. Crossing point would be the Mississippi north of Memphis. Goods tended to move by water or they didn't move. There were few railroads going North to South, certainly few enough to be easily policed. So whatever smuggling would happen would be a minor nusance.
Who in the Confederacy said this?
You did, when you talked about the South levying fees on traffic from the North. It's an easy step from taxing it to cutting it off altogether.
OK so let's look at that, and let's even pretend that your imaginary 6% tariff was true. Why would goods destined for Northern consumers go to Southern ports? Assuming the South did levy a tariff on them then they would have to also pay the Northern tariff once they crossed the border. So where it the sense in that? What idiot would route their goods to Southern ports so they could be taxed twice?
See, I mentioned the Northern tariff. Happy?
And every point at which anyone wanted to float a boat across the river - which would be just about everywhere given a difference in tariff rates as high as thirty percent. Rome destroyed the commerce of Rhodes with an eight percent tariff differential - just for comparison.
Just to jog your memory, Kentucky remained in the Union so your Ohio River scenario doesn't apply. Crossing point would be the Mississippi north of Memphis. Goods tended to move by water or they didn't move. There were few railroads going North to South, certainly few enough to be easily policed. So whatever smuggling would happen would be a minor nusance.
Who in the Confederacy said this?
You did, when you talked about the South levying fees on traffic from the North. It's an easy step from taxing it to cutting it off altogether.
==the South in being willing to fire on Fort Sumter and provoke a conflict ==
From the Confederate point of view, since South Carolina seceeded from the Union, Fort Sumter was now held by an occupying power.
Yes. You are both misinterpreting the numbers. Southerners used factors based in the north to deal with their trading partners in Britain. Most of the banking and most of the money handling for southern trade took place in the north - and that is where the taxes were collected. But it was southerners paying most of the tax.
Albeit severe, my take is that The “red legs” got their due at Lawrence for all of the transgressions committed against the people living along the Missouri/Kansas line, especially the women who suffered the building collapse. My fiancee is a great great great niece of Bloody Bill Anderson. My future father in law has spoken about the war of northern agression. His take is that it was about jealousy and greed of the north.
My two cents.
MFO
Bloody Bill would have felt right at home in Bosnia in around 1993. Bloody Bill’s Tigers has a certain ring to it.
There were 32 states. Thirty two impacted parties.
What about all those Tories during the First War of Independence?
The Constitution doesn't cover them.
How do we get rid of a foreign army that doesn't want to leave after all the impacted parties have decided to secede?
Starting a war is certainly one way. But it just didn't turn out the way you had hoped.
Excuse me? What fort did we bombard in Kansas?
I'm referring to the one in Charleston. Sumter? Remember that?
And what rule of law magically transferred ownership from the federal government to South Carolina?
You are the one claiming that the South paid 85% of all tariffs. Tariffs are levied at the point where the goods are landed. Why would all those goods be landed in Northern ports if they were destined for Southern consumers?
And just what the heck were Southerners importing in such massive amounts anyway?
Effete hindsight is a wonderful balm for the ego, isn't it?
Fortunately the one thing he could be trusted on was winning the war. If the South won, it would have ended up a neo-colonial possesion of France and the UK.
To add, maybe Emperor Maximillian would have liked Richmond better than Mexico City.
To add, maybe Emperor Maximillian would have liked Richmond better than Mexico City.
That would be true if the Union garrisoned the entire northern bank of the Ohio river. Otherwise it's more or less an open border and with a huge difference in tariff rates smuggling would be universal. They would get no tariff at all and would be forced to lower their rates. This was covered in the earlier post which you seem to have wandered onto.
And no you didn't mention that the northern tariff was 47%.
Assuming the South did levy a tariff on them then they would have to also pay the Northern tariff once they crossed the border.
I guess you didn't wander far enough to get the bit about needing to troops guard the border to enforce the tariff. Kentucky stayed in the Union during the war.
Who in the Confederacy said this?
"You did, when you talked about the South levying fees on traffic from the North. It's an easy step from taxing it to cutting it off altogether."
I said was these arguments were invented by northern interests attempting to whip up support for a war.
Perhaps, but throwing shot and shell at the fort was not likely to result in a friendly Union response.
Yeah but the evasion was for different reasons, It wasn't necessary an unGodly evasion either. They just didn't wander into Penn by accident.
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.