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

Skip to comments.

The South and the Northern Tariff
Congressional Globe | 1861 | Senator Thomas Clingman

Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-351 next last
To: ggekko
In point of fact the Southern secession did cause a Northern financial crisis with North American and European trade sinking dramatically.

And yet President Lincoln could say in 1864:

"Our resources are unexhausted, and are as we think, inexhaustible."

Lee's army was on half rations.

Walt

101 posted on 02/27/2003 5:43:28 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln solved the financial crisis by printing "Greenbacks" out of thin air. The foreign exchange value of the Dollar sunk to 30% of its pre-war value.

What was the confederate dollar worth by the end of 1864?

102 posted on 02/27/2003 6:11:49 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln solved the financial crisis by printing "Greenbacks" out of thin air. The foreign exchange value of the Dollar sunk to 30% of its pre-war value.

What was the confederate dollar worth by the end of 1864?

103 posted on 02/27/2003 6:11:50 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Any recommendations?
104 posted on 02/27/2003 6:20:59 AM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Any recommendations?
105 posted on 02/27/2003 6:20:59 AM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
So it's OK to violate the Constitution a little, but not a lot? Where is the line?
106 posted on 02/27/2003 6:24:11 AM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
So it's OK to violate the Constitution a little, but not a lot? Where is the line?

Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution.

"Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."

--Chief Justice William Rehenquist, November, 1999

"The President was not out to trample on the First Amendment. He was not out to crush his political opposition. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in response to perceived military threats to the Union. After he, and later Congress, removed that Constitutional safeguard, the Lincoln Administration did not use its power selfishly or arbitrarily. It arrested only those people who actively supported the Confederate war machine--people like Merryman, who recruited troops to march south. And when people walked this fine line between political dissent and treason, as Vallandigham did, Lincoln tried to err on the side of free speech...

Midway through the war, Lincoln predicted that Habeas Corpus would quickly be re-instituted after the war was over. He could not bring himself to believe that Americans would allow the wartime suspension of Habeas Corpus to extend into peacetime, he said, "Any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life." Lincoln died before he could see the writ of habeas corpus restored.

Lincoln asked:

"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around our doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises."

So today, let us heed the wisdom of a man who led our nation to a "new birth of freedom." Let us always be, first and foremost, lovers of liberty."

-- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 11/19/96

Lovers of liberty -- like President Lincoln

Walt

107 posted on 02/27/2003 6:30:32 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln solved the financial crisis by printing "Greenbacks" out of thin air. The foreign exchange value of the Dollar sunk to 30% of its pre-war value.

What was the confederate dollar worth by the end of 1864?

In Richmond? Five bucks for a stick of firewood, $500 for a barrel of flour.

Walt

108 posted on 02/27/2003 6:32:51 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
In other words with all that cotton and all that wealth the confederate dollar in 1864 was worth somewhere between zilch point squat and nothing? Makes 30% look pretty damned good to me, what with nothing to export and all.
109 posted on 02/27/2003 6:38:15 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
So it's OK to violate the Constitution a little, but not a lot? Where is the line?

It has never been ruled that Lincoln violated the Constitution at all. But you should really direct that question to Jeff Davis. There was a reason, I think, why the confederate president was not required to swear an oath to protect and defend the confederate constitution. They had so little respect for it to begin with.

110 posted on 02/27/2003 6:41:23 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Treason was the southern strategy as they attacked and seized federal fortifications.

They seized "federal fortifications" that were on STATE soil. Have you ever heard of "imminent domain?"

Secessionsts violated the US Constitution by forming a confederacy which is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution.

No where in the Constitution did it forbid secession, in deference to what the Lincoln-lovers want to believe.

The highlight of southern gentlemanly tactics was to shoot Abe Lincoln in the back.

Considering that Lincoln turned his back to the Constitution, where else would he have been shot? (/sarcasm)

111 posted on 02/27/2003 7:20:04 AM PST by A2J (Those who truly understand peace know that its father is war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
So you've thrown yourself in with an anti-Constitutionalist anarchist.

Wow, that sounds like something King George said about those who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Deo Vindice!

112 posted on 02/27/2003 7:25:42 AM PST by A2J (Those who truly understand peace know that its father is war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
In other words with all that cotton and all that wealth the confederate dollar in 1864 was worth somewhere between zilch point squat and nothing? Makes 30% look pretty damned good to me, what with nothing to export and all.

This was interesting:

"Into the hands of Lincoln and Davis was thrust the destiny of a divided people. Lincoln was the product of the soil, Davis of the study. One had breathed the freedom of nature and could beat express his inner feeling in parables; the other had breathed the air of the cloister, and his soul had grown stiff as the parchment it fed upon. Lincoln was very human, Davis artificial, autocratic and forever standing on the pedestal of his own conceit; a man of little humour who could dictate, but who could not argue or listen and who could not tolerate either help or opposition. Because he relied upon European intervention to scuttle the war, he had no foreign policy outside establishing cotton as king.

Early in the war the Hon. James Mason, Confederate Commissioner in Europe, affirmed that all cotton in that continent would be exhausted by February, 1862, "and that . . . intervention would [then] be inevitable"- yet before the end of 1861 Europe was learning to do without cotton. Davis could not believe that he was wrong; he staked the fortunes of his government and his people on this commodity and lost. On the other hand, Lincoln pinned his faith on what he believed to be the common rights of humanity.

In spite of division he saw one people, and in spite of climate and occupation, one nation. To him the Union was older than any state for it was the Union which had created the States as states.

He saw that whatever happened the nation could not permanently remain divided. His supreme difficulty was to maintain the unity of the North so that he might enforce unity upon the South; whereas Jefferson Davis's ship of state was wrecked on the fundamental principle of his policy that each individual state had the right to control its own destiny, a policy which was incapable of establishing united effort."

--"A Military History of the Western World Vol 3, P. 16 by Major General J.F.C. Fuller

Fuller, along with B.H. Liddel Hart is best known as proponent of the theory of warfare the Germans developed into the operational technique known as Blitzkrieg.

Walt

113 posted on 02/27/2003 7:33:39 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Considering that Lincoln turned his back to the Constitution, where else would he have been shot? (/sarcasm)

You can't show in the record that President Lincoln violated the Constitution.

Walt

114 posted on 02/27/2003 7:37:27 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
A tariff is not a tax.

TARIFF. Customs, duties, toll. or tribute payable upon merchandise to the general government is called tariff

How about the definition of "duty" from Merriam-Webster:

4 : TAX; especially : a tax on imports

115 posted on 02/27/2003 9:06:02 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
A tariff is not a tax.

TARIFF. Customs, duties, toll. or tribute payable upon merchandise to the general government is called tariff

How about the definition of "duty" from Merriam-Webster:

4 : TAX; especially : a tax on imports

116 posted on 02/27/2003 9:07:10 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The south designed itself to hurt itself

Well that's a non-response. Try again, Walt.

117 posted on 02/27/2003 10:17:01 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
That was a bunch of stupid merchants, or the good senator is blowing smoke.

Do you know that for a fact, Walt? Can you offer evidence of it? If not, then you have no case. Besides, who are you to assert yourself to have a better understanding of southern trade in 1860 than Clingman?

118 posted on 02/27/2003 10:21:13 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; 4ConservativeJustices; billbears; shuckmaster; stainlessbanner; PeaRidge; ggekko; ...
A tariff is not a tax. - Walt

Check out post 96. He said it again!

119 posted on 02/27/2003 10:23:27 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; 4ConservativeJustices; billbears; shuckmaster; stainlessbanner; PeaRidge; ggekko; ...
A tariff is not a tax. - Walt

Check out post 96. He said it again!

120 posted on 02/27/2003 10:23:55 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-351 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