Why the South Lives On

American Thinker.com ^ | April 12, 2022 | Mike Konrad

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: "The idea that the 1/4th the population CSA would try to "conquer lands in the USA is ridiculous."

And yet, that's just what happened.
If you follow Homer_J_Simpson's daily Civil War posts, you know that as of "today", April 14, 1862 there have been 94 battles / skirmishes / engagements so far.
Of those, 57 (60%) were in Union states & territories, 37 in Confederate states.
As of "today" Confederates have still won nearly half the engagements, even in Union states, though the tide of war is clearly changing in the Union's favor:

Summary of Civil War Engagements as of April 12, 1862:
Engagements in Confederate states:

State	Union Victories	Confederate Victories	Inconclusive	Total Engagements
South Carolina	1	1	1	3
Virginia	5	11	7	23
North Carolina	3	0	0	3
Florida	1	0	0	1
Louisiana	0	1	0	1
Tennessee	3	0	0	3
Arkansas	1	0	1	2
Georgia	1	0	0	1
Total Engagements in CSA	15	13	9	37

Engagements in Union states/territories:

State	Union Victories	Confederate Victories	Inconclusive	Total Engagements
Maryland	1	0	1	2
West Virginia	9	2	2	13
Missouri	11	9	1	21
New Mexico	2	7	0	9
Kentucky	4	3	2	9
Oklahoma	0	3	0	3
Total Engagements in Union	27	24	6	57
Total Engagements to date	42	37	15	94

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In fact they did. They produced 72% of the total European trade with the United States."

No, you can repeat that lie as often as you wish, but you can never make it true.
Confederate state raw cotton accounted for roughly 50% of total US exports -- ~$200 million out of $400 million in 1860.
Everything else of value was produced in Union states & territories, as demonstrated in 1861 when Confederate cotton was eliminated from US exports.
That reduced US raw cotton exports by 82%, but everything else fell only slightly in 1861 and some so-called Southern Products , i.e., Hops & cotton seed, increased by multiples.

So Southern propagandists' claims that their slave-produced exports "paid for" Federal revenues are exaggerated at best.
And there's more -- for every dollar of cotton exported, Southerners "imported" a dollar's worth of manufactured goods from the North -- i.e., clothing, shoes, iron products, soap & candles, etc.
This is how Northerners, Easterners & Westerners earned money to pay for about $375 million in 1860 imports, tariffs on which funded Federal government.

Bottom line: in 1860 the South accounted for roughly 15% of the US $4.4 billion Gross Domestic Product, and that was the 1861 overall loss caused by secession.
But the Union economy quickly shifted to other export products and by Civil War's end Northern GDP had more than doubled, along with it Federal tariff revenues.

So Southern propagandists, then and now, had an exaggerated opinion of their own self-worth.

[Theophilus]

Well that’s still amazing! His life must be a great story. FReegards.

[Theophilus]

that link I put in my reply, Harrison Tyler, his grandpa was the 10th President 1841-1845 and the he is still alive¹

[FLT-bird]

But anything not relating directly to the matter before the court are made in dicta and are not binding. Only rulings that directly address the matter before the court are Ratio decidendi and are binding on courts at all levels.

False. Its hilarious how much self ownage you engage in.

In other words you just made them up. Not surprising.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Not surprising.

What part of standing did Taney rule Scott case did not meet? And if Scott did not meet the standing requirements then why did he issue a ruling to begin with instead of just dismissing the case out of hand?

The decision was that Scott was not a citizen and therefore could not bring a case....AND that a slave would not gain their freedom even if the slaveowner transited them through a state that had banned slavery or through a territory of the US. You can read pretty much any synopsis of the case and see that that was the decision and that was its significance. It was not simply dismissed because Soctt was not a citizen according to the laws then in place and according to the constitution as you are trying to claim.

The only bar you passed serves alcohol.

LOL! NY. 3rd district. Albany, 1997.

[rbmillerjr]

Sorry you seem to support the wrong side and America’s enemies.

The US won the war and America is better for it. Your Balkanized view of North America would have seen the CSA and USA split and defeated by the British.

[P.O.E.]

Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution.

Substitute cities and non-cities in the US and the same thing is still going on.

[DoodleDawg]

1865: Amdt 13: Section 1. "Neither slavery...."

I agree that the 13th Amendment added the word 'slavery'. But the disagreement was with the claim that the Confederate Constitution was virtually a copy of the U.S. Constitution as it existed in March 1861. That was pre-13th Amendment.

[DoodleDawg]

LOL! NY. 3rd district. Albany, 1997.

I truly feel for your legal clients then, having an attorney so completely ignorant in the law.

[jeffersondem]

““The View” host Joy Behar challenged former Vice President Mike Pence’s views on same sex marriage by saying that she didn't think homosexuality was even mentioned in the Bible.”

No known connection to what we have discussed.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4054956/posts

[DoodleDawg]

And I am supposed to care about this because...?

[jmacusa]

That's your reality Reb and you're deluded.

The Confederacy undertook war to preserve slavery AND expand it into new territories. The only ''dogma'' I ''cling to is the fact of what I just said. YOUR SIDE STARTED A WAR AND LOST!!! DEAL WITH IT!!

[bert]

BS yankee sob

Yankees are now losers

[jmacusa]

Thanks for conceding the argument Reb.

You’re no different that your barn yard educated ancestors.

[CarolinaReaganFan]

ping
! always enjoy our Confederate Memorial Day.
all soldiers were heroes regardless of side

[FLT-bird]

That's your reality Reb and you're deluded. The Confederacy undertook war to preserve slavery AND expand it into new territories. The only ''dogma'' I ''cling to is the fact of what I just said. YOUR SIDE STARTED A WAR AND LOST!!! DEAL WITH IT!!

That's THE reality. I've provided facts, quotes and sources. You've provided nothing but invective.

Lincoln started a war of aggression for money and empire. The CSA fought only to defend itself. DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

[FLT-bird]

I truly feel for your legal clients then, having an attorney so completely ignorant in the law.

hilarious coming from a complete ignoramus like you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Slavery, racial conflicts, class conflicts and declining cotton prices would make the Confederacy a very unstable place to live.

So you are saying something suddenly changed from the previous hundred years of their society? What was it that changed which would suddenly cause "slavery, racial conflicts, class conflicts and declining cotton prices" to make them unstable? (Other than the North launching a war on them.)

It's not unheard of that its leaders might start a war as a way to achieve internal unity, as indeed they did in 1861.

Well I keep hearing this argument advanced by their enemies, so I'm not sure it's a credible argument. Looks to me like Lincoln started the war by threatening to bombard them with warships. Not sure what any reasonable person in their position would have done differently.

That is precisely what they tried to do in Kentucky, which had tried to remain neutral. The Confederate government wanted to unite all the slaveowners in the country under its rule. Of necessity that did mean invading US territory.

Are you referring to before the war or after the war started? It is my recollection that before the war, a Union officer went into Missouri to do the same thing, and was quite violent and despotic about it.

That is itself poop. Say I raise sheep. I sell you the wool and the mutton. I get money for it. You have a lot of enterprises and make a lot of things. You have money to buy things from abroad. You pay taxes on it. I can sell my wool and mutton abroad, too. I can also buy things from abroad as well and pay taxes on those things. But if there are more of you and you make more things, you will be able to buy more from abroad and you will pay more taxes.

You are leaving out the fact that US government law *forced* them to purchase products and services from the Northern companies or pay heavy penalties for not doing so. It wasn't a free market, it was a protectionist market designed to benefit the behind the scenes powers made up of the wealthy industrialists of the North.

Cotton planters were quite rich, but their weren't enough of them to import as much as the larger population of the free states did.

Yes, I am aware that the population of the North was much larger, but this is irrelevant to the fact that without patronage compelled by the Federal Government, that money wouldn't have ended up in the pockets of that Northern population. It would have remained in the hands of the Southern exporters to do with as they pleased, and without the artificially distorted market, they likely would have ended up buying a lot more European manufactured products.

To go back to your earlier post, you have no idea who my ancestors were and what they did or didn't do, but it's obvious that some people here talk a lot about tariffs because they didn't want to admit that their relatives fought a war to benefit the slaveowners.

Not my relatives. They weren't in the USA until after the 1900s. They also did not settle in any of the Southern states, and so they have no cultural reasons for favoring the South's position in the war.

Also, if you had been paying attention to what I have been saying for years, I have pointed out repeatedly that "tariffs" are just one aspect of the situation.

The far greater threat to the North was the importation of European products which would have flooded the markets (along the border and in Midwest areas which could be served by the Mississippi river) that were previously being serviced by the wealthy industrialists of the Northeast.

Not only would the rich, powerful people who owned Washington DC have experienced the loss of money from all that tariff revenue, they would have lost sales to markets taken over by European products imported through Southern ports with low duties on them.

The rich, powerful wealthy elite of the Northeast which controlled Washington DC would become financially devastated by the free(er) Market policies of the CSA, and many would have been rendered destitute.

Just as FLT-Bird wrote in his message #244, even William Tecumseh Sherman saw what was going to happen.

Here is what William T Sherman wrote to his brother Senator John Sherman: "Down here they think they are going to have fine times. New Orleans a free port, whereby she can import Goods without limit or duties, and Sell to the up River Countries. But Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore will never consent that N. Orleans should be a Free Port, and they Subject to Duties."

He names the powerful wealthy cities that would wage war on them rather than let them free trade with Europe. He clearly identifies their greed as the cause of the war.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Well yes, you do keep spreading your misinformation!

Your claims are now still as untrue now as they were 1,000,000 times ago.

“ We’ve gone over this a million times on this board. ”

[Pikachu_Dad]

Well, you are always wrong !

“…Correct me if I am wrong, but ”