Posted on 01/04/2009 2:29:32 PM PST by NCjim
Take a look at a map. The Ohio River forms the northern border of Kentucky, a Union state. The northern border of the confederacy would have been Tennessee and Virginia.
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.
I'm still trying to nail down this fantasy of your's. So you're saying that all those goods destined for New York or Massachusetts would be best smuggled over the Tennessee/Kentucky border? And then what?
And no you didn't mention that the northern tariff was 47%.
Probably because it wasn't. The Morrill tariff rates as passed in 1861 raised the rates to an average of 26%.
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.
Before the war, too. And after the war. What's your point?
I said was these arguments were invented by northern interests attempting to whip up support for a war.
And you're saying they made them up? A lot of that going on around here tonight.
After nearly 35 years of bitter protests about tariffs, since the Tariff of Abominations, the South could see the writing on the wall in the form of the Morrill tariff bill making its way through congress. In fact, after passage of the 1828 tariff, South Carolina nearly seceded at that point. Instead, voting to nullify, or refusing to collect the tariff.
By 1862, their fears were proven correct when the average tariff rate had crept up to 47.06%, which "established protective duties more extreme than had been ventured on in any previous tariff act in our country's history."
Thirty five years of the South providing 90% of the federal revenue which was spent primarily in the North was the reason that seven states had seceded by the time Lincoln gave his inaugural address.
But at least you know your gay history. I guess.
"There were 32 states. Thirty two impacted parties."
Where in the constitution does it say this? Or is this just some general principle you made up?
What about all those Tories during the First War of Independence?
"The Constitution doesn't cover them."
So it's not any particular principle that justifies secession, but only the constitution? OK, where in the constitution does it say the unanimous consent of the states is required for secession, or anything else?
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."
OK OK I got it. It's not a principle. It's not the constitution. It's basically just a matter of whether or not you can win militarily. Thanks for clearing up how secession is OK if it's done properly.
Excuse me? What fort did we bombard in Kansas?
"I'm referring to the one in Charleston. Sumter? Remember that?"
But the post you wandered onto was about Kansas.
That view of the cause of the civil war is consistent with the conventional perception held by a majority of the incurious.
The South did not "rebel." They merely exercised their constitutional right to secede. Lincoln, as etched in stone on the Texas monument says, "resorted to coercion" to deny the South it's right to self determination.
On December 10, 1860, the Daily Chicago Times candidly admitted that the tariff was indeed a tool used by Northerners for the purpose of plundering the South. The editor of the newspaper warned that the benefits of this political plunder would be threatened by the existence of free trade in the South:
The South has furnished near three fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished 72% of the whole... We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from 30 to 50%, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
"Let the South adopt the free-trade system," the Chicago paper ominously warned, and the North's "commerce must be reduced to less than half what it now is." In addition, "our labor could not compete... With the labor of Europe" and "a large portion of our shipping interest would pass into the hands of the South," leading to "very general bankruptcy and ruin."
marker scene 27
Yeah like the southern papers were unbias, kind of like saying the New York times prints conservative views.
Yes, Israel has been trying to win honorably.
Bad plan.
Tariffs can only be collected where traffic can be controlled. Besides, Kentucky would almost certainly have seceded if the South had won.
I'm still trying to nail down this fantasy of your's. So you're saying that all those goods destined for New York or Massachusetts would be best smuggled over the Tennessee/Kentucky border? And then what?
Sold in the north at lower prices. New England would not be the target market. The midwest would be. And it's not my fantasy. It was war propaganda whipped up in the press. There is logic to it though and it had its intended effect.
The Morrill tariff rates as passed in 1861 raised the rates to an average of 26%.
It was initially 37.5%. Shortly after it was raised to 47.06%. See Frank Taussig's The Tariff History of the United States. Wikipedia is usually unreliable on Civil War topics.
States cannot join the Union without the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once admitted, they cannot join or split or change their borders by a fraction of an inch without the consent of Congress. It's no great stretch to accept that the same is required to leave as well. At least Madison didn't think so. Neither did the Supreme Court.
So it's not any particular principle that justifies secession, but only the constitution?
You can rebel for any reason or no reason at all. That doesn't make it legal.
OK, where in the constitution does it say the unanimous consent of the states is required for secession, or anything else?
I never said unanimous. Approval of the majority is good enough to allow a state to join. It should be good enough to leave as well.
OK OK I got it. It's not a principle. It's not the constitution. It's basically just a matter of whether or not you can win militarily.
Point out where the Constitution guarantees successful rebellion.
Thanks for clearing up how secession is OK if it's done properly.
Yes, it is. Why is that surprising?
And you base that on?
Sold in the north at lower prices. New England would not be the target market. The midwest would be. And it's not my fantasy.
Of course it isn't.
It was initially 37.5%. Shortly after it was raised to 47.06%.
High end. Average was less. See Frank Taussig's The Tariff History of the United States.
Quote?
Regardless of the moral aspect or your beliefs... Sherman’s march to the sea worked.
End of story.
We can argue the morality of it until the cows come home, it still won’t change that fact. It worked.
Citation please.
See the appendix. The 26% rate comes from comparing the taxes collected to the value of all imports - a completely misleading number. The correct average tax rate is obtained by comparing the taxes collected to the value of taxable imports.
It does help to know. Considering the disasters every one of them who has held a public office have been. As they say those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Do you like how Barney Franks housing policies have worked out.
And he directed as well as stared in The Outlaw Josey Wales, which is not sympathetic to Union tactics against civilians.
They don't make movies like that anymore.
Sherman, unable to defeat southern men on the battlefield, decided to try his luck with defenseless women and children.
Sherman defeated Confederate forces quite nicely from Chattanooga to Atlanta before the so-called war crimes even begun. If you want to blame anybody for Sherman's "crimes" blame the incompetent Confederate general Hood and his second class army for abandoning southern Georgia to Sherman.
Sure. Me. I was asking a question, speculating just as SeeSharp has been doing all along.
Unable to defeat southern men on the battlefield? How the heck do you think Sherman got to Atlanta in the first place?
Sure they do. "Ride With The Devil" comes to mind. If all Southern women looked like Jewel then I'd turn rebel. On the other hand, if all Five Point hookers looked like Cameron Diaz I might join a Gang of New York, too.
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.