To pay for the war. The original increase was much less.
The Southern states seceded under either democratic plebiscites in those states or via democratic election of representatives to conventions - the very means by which they had joined the US in the first place.
There was corruption and coercion. The secret ballot was not introduced until years, or decades, later. It's hard to say whether a majority in Georgia actually wanted secession. At least one state pledged to have a referendum but didn't hold it. Other states had no referendums. Several state convention rejected secession and then in a heated atmosphere of conflict accepted it. Why should one vote count and the other not?
Any sovereign country is obviously not going to allow a foreign country to hold forts on its territory - and at any rate can claim such installations under its eminent domain power.
That would be theft of bought and paid for federal property. Guantanamo didn't become Castro's just because he wanted it.
Had they been less economically exploitative, had they been willing to offer a reasonable compensated emancipation scheme (as other Western countries had done and indeed as Northern states had done for their citizens when they abolished slavery), had they not been so determined to impose their will on others instead of negotiating with them in good faith, it probably could have been avoided.
Lincoln did propose compensate emancipation. It was rejected. Everybody knew it wasn't what the political class of the South wanted or would accept. They wanted to impose slavery on the territories (and some wanted to impose it on the free states).
But let's remember who was driving that train - New England.
Culturally or intellectually maybe, but the South dominated the antebellum federal governments. 1860 marked the moment when the growing industrial and agricultural strength of the Midatlantic and Midwestern states came to be felt in spite of the established power of the Southern Democrats. It was not about New England however much propagandists want to make it out to be.
I have no desire to pursue this further with you. I remember getting your long, pointless cut and paste screeds at all hours and have no desire to go through that again.
Originally it was double. Then it went to triple and stayed there until the 19-teens.
There was corruption and coercion. The secret ballot was not introduced until years, or decades, later. It's hard to say whether a majority in Georgia actually wanted secession. At least one state pledged to have a referendum but didn't hold it. Other states had no referendums. Several state convention rejected secession and then in a heated atmosphere of conflict accepted it. Why should one vote count and the other not?
There is no evidence of corruption and coercion. The vote was held in the same manner as in other elections and/or the conventions that ratified the constitution in the first place. The states that rejected secession voted to secede after Lincoln chose to start a war to prevent other states from leaving and ordered states in the union to provide troops to attack them....thus converting the union from one based on consent to one based on force and threats.
That would be theft of bought and paid for federal property. Guantanamo didn't become Castro's just because he wanted it.
No it would not any more than any other property claimed by a state government under its eminent domain power is theft. Fair market value is owed for that property but a state or any sovereign can compel the sale. Cuba was never part of the US. There is a treaty between Cuba and the US which leases Gitmo to the US. Bad analogy.
Lincoln did propose compensate emancipation. It was rejected.
Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation only after he had started the war and he did not propose fair market value.
Everybody knew it wasn't what the political class of the South wanted or would accept.
They wouldn't accept it even though they offered to agree to a treaty that would have abolished slavery in exchange for British/French military aid? Even though they turned down slavery effectively forever via express constitutional amendment? It seems as though slavery and the preservation of it was not their primary motivation.
They wanted to impose slavery on the territories (and some wanted to impose it on the free states).
As I've already gone over, they needed Senators who would vote with them to prevent things like the rapacious Morrill Tariff so long as they were in the US. They made scant effort to spread slavery to the Western territory and were perfectly willing to leave without claiming any of the western territory. So much for the idea that they had any zeal to spread slavery. Their main concern was obviously protecting themselves against Northern predations. The whole idea of imposing slavery on the Northern states is laughable.
Culturally or intellectually maybe, but the South dominated the antebellum federal governments. 1860 marked the moment when the growing industrial and agricultural strength of the Midatlantic and Midwestern states came to be felt in spite of the established power of the Southern Democrats. It was not about New England however much propagandists want to make it out to be.
The South HAD dominated the federal government in the early years of the Republic. It was by far the wealthiest region then. It certainly had not dominated the federal government for at least a generation before secession. Indeed it had been fighting a desperate rearguard action to prevent the Northern states from re-imposing crushingly high tariffs like the Tariff of Abominations which had proven so harmful to the South. Propagandists are those trying to claim New England was not driving things in the Federal government. Look at who the big corporate fatcats were. Look who benefitted from high protective tariffs.
I have no desire to pursue this further with you. I remember getting your long, pointless cut and paste screeds at all hours and have no desire to go through that again.
Yes, I remember you trying to spew propaganda in these threads before and how much you disliked anybody pointing out the actual history.
Firstly, the original grant of land to the Federal government by the legislature of South Carolina specified that a fort would be built for the protection of Charleston.
The Federal government did not uphold their end of the bargain until many decades later. (There was a later second grant of the same land without conditions, but clearly the understanding was that a fort would be built for the purpose of defending Charleston.)
Secondly, as the Southern states produced 72% of the total trade with Europe, they were responsible for producing 72% of all tariff revenue from which the government operated.
They paid for their forts many many times over.