Posted on 07/13/2015 11:33:52 AM PDT by Republican1795.
Sounds an awful lot like the situation at Guantanamo Bay. What you you call that?
Since the Morill Tariff wasn't passed until after the Southern states seceded then how could it have been bankrupting them?
The Morill Tariff was just a continuation of earlier gouging tariffs going back to 1829... it was simply more extreme. Remember also that more states joined the CSA AFTER the tariff was passed. It was a huge factor in forcing other states to join the CSA. The North went to war for the express purpose of collecting the tariffs and Dixie’s main reason for wanting to remain independent was to keep their money in their region.
The CSA was formed due to the oppressive tariffs and SOME states later joined the CSA over the North's invasion [ North Carolina / Virginia / Tennessee / Arkansas ] but there would have been no traction or momentum or sustenance for secession if the bulk of the average population were opposed to it. The slave owners wanted to remain in the union as they knew they had a better deal but they got nervous when they caught wind of talk of secession so decided to try to get out in front of it in the name of self interest. Similar to how a politician gets exposed with a scandal them tries to get out in front of it as though he were "coming clean" with the public when in reality he never wanted any of his shenanigans to be made public. Sadly because of the slave owners futile act [ the leaders of the CSA were openly taking about abolishing slavery! ] of self preservation - the entire cause of CSA secession has been unjustly clouded as a "defense of slavery" when it was a marginal concern by those who had a louder megaphone and more economic clout.
No one ever says that the American national flag is the flag of the Republicans or of the Democrats or the flag of The New Deal or the flag of the Great Society or the flag of Reganomics or even of Obamacare or of slavery for that matter [ it flew over slavery longer than the CBF ] as it is supposed to transcend political ideologies. The same thing is true with the Confederate Battle Flag.
So, you claim the South seceded because the Morill Tariff was bankrupting them. And when I point out that the Morill Tariff wasn't even in effect when they left then your response is that it wasn't really the Morill Tariff but the ones going back to 1829. So I suppose if I ask then why the South didn't secede back then instead of waiting for the election of a president from a party opposed to slavery you would be able to come up with some other reason?
Remember also that more states joined the CSA AFTER the tariff was passed.
Fewer than joined before the tariff was passed, and they joined only after the South started the war.
The North went to war for the express purpose of collecting the tariffs and Dixie’s main reason for wanting to remain independent was to keep their money in their region.
And that has no basis in fact and is so far from the truth that is borders on ridiculous.
Hey Doodle are going to tell us YOUR position on the question of repealing DADT? Your last answer was a COWARDLY dodge. We want to know what YOU think about faggots in the military openly “serving”.
This is a great point that I pointed out as well. Some people seem to forget that anyone or any group can appropriate a given flag... but that does not then mean that the flag now represents ONLY that person or group. There are far more non-racists who fly the Confederate Battle Flag than racists. Furthermore: a lot of those so called or self styled racists are often just agent provocateurs attempting to calumniate the image of the flag.
The Morill tariff was was a well known bill long before it was passed so your use of sophistry in pointing out that it was passed a few weeks after the CSA was formed is a NULL & moot point. The CSA wanted to secede earlier at any rate. What you forget is that the Morill Tariff cranked up the tariff to incredibly high levels. So claiming that they should have seceded earlier is specious reasoning as the Morill was more extreme and prompted the secessionist movement to grow. Lincoln was not opposed to slavery! He expressly stated that his main goal was to “save the Union” and that he would have done that if it kept slavery in place! The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measures act that had no effect on the CSA. People knew the new tariff was coming! So playing games about when it was passed does not hold water.
The South did not start the war! More damnable lies! The CSA attempted to make peace with the North at every chance. Read up on this topic instead of obtusely asserting that the facts raised have “no basis in fact”. Stop regurgitating the Northern based establishment lies.
The consternation over the high tariffs was an long running concern that exploded once the North proposed a new stronger tariff.
The North could not afford to let the CSA remain independent as it would have cost them too much. They did not give a rat’s ass about slavery as it was a wedge they used as a political stunt in the closing stages of the war. The North had imposed strict tariffs onto Dixie for decades prior and when they saw the stricter Morill Bill coming their hand was forced leading to secession just before the bill became law.
I think it's very relevant when you're the one complaining that the South left because it was bankrupting them.
And just out of curiosity, what was it that the South was buying in such massive quantities that the tariffs were driving them to the poor farm?
The CSA wanted to secede earlier at any rate.
Their total silence on the matter was the dead giveaway?
He expressly stated that his main goal was to “save the Union” and that he would have done that if it kept slavery in place!
And the Southern leaders all stated that their cause was motivated, driven by, wrapped up in their need to protect their institution of slavery. So I'll stipulate to your claim that slavery was not the reason why the North fought if you will admit that slavery was the reason why the South did.
The CSA attempted to make peace with the North at every chance.
Bombarding a fort is a funny way of showing it.
Read up on this topic instead of obtusely asserting that the facts raised have “no basis in fact”.
I have. And apparently from a broader range of sources than you have.
Stop regurgitating the Northern based establishment lies.
I'm trying to refute the Confederate based ones.
Like what?
Quote: [ And just out of curiosity, what was it that the South was buying in such massive quantities that the tariffs were driving them to the poor farm? ]
The taxation of goods was affecting Dixie much more than the industrialized North. Here is a relevant quote from Northern scholar named Michael T. Griffith who looked into this topic. Quote: [ Under the power of Congress to levy duties on imports, tariff laws were enacted, not merely "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," as authorized by the Constitution, but, positively and primarily, for the protection against foreign competition of domestic manufactures. The effect of this was to impose the main burden of taxation upon the Southern people, who were consumers and not manufacturers, not only by the enhanced price of imports, but indirectly by the consequent depreciation in the value of exports, which were chiefly the products of Southern states. The imposition of this grievance was unaccompanied by the consolation of knowing that the tax thus borne was to be paid into the public treasury, for the increase of price accrued mainly to the benefit of the manufacturers. Nor was this all: a reference to the annual appropriations will show that the disbursements made were as unequal as the burdens borne--the inequality in both operating in the same direction [i.e., against the South in both cases]. (Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, New York: De Capo Press, 1990, reprint of 1881 edition, p. 28) ] End of quoted text.
Quote:[ Their total silence on the matter was the dead giveaway? ]
Wrong again propagandist.
Here is a relevant quote and rebuttal. Quote: [ For decades prior to the secession crisis, the South had complained about the imposition of tariffs. Tariffs usually had a negative impact on the South's economy, while they tended to have a positive impact on the North's economy. Because the South's economy was heavily dependent on imports and exports, the South paid the majority of the tariffs. In 1832 South Carolina and the federal government nearly came to blows because South Carolina refused to pay the recently increased tariffs. Eventually a compromise was reached and the tariffs were gradually reduced. The issue of tariffs continued to be a sore point between North and South right up to the start of the Civil War. Southern leaders also objected to the misuse of tariff revenue by the federal government. They viewed as unfair and unconstitutional the use of tariff money for "internal improvements." Admittedly, many more of these "internal improvements" went to the North than to the South. The South had a valid complaint here, and the situation only stood to get worse with the election of Lincoln, who favored higher tariffs and increased spending on internal improvements. We must bear in mind that there was no income tax back then. Tariffs were a huge source of revenue for the federal government at the time. It's fair to say that in most cases the South favored free trade and that the North favored protectionism. The South's desire to control its own economic destiny and to trade directly with Europe without having to pay federal tariffs was an important factor in its decision to secede. ] End of text.
Quote:[ And the Southern leaders all stated that their cause was motivated, driven by, wrapped up in their need to protect their institution of slavery. ]
That has long since been debunked because the slave owners wanted to remain in the union and only at the 11th hour joined the cause of Dixie secession when they thought its star was rising. Politicians pandering to wealthy elites is not new.
Quote: [ Bombarding a fort is a funny way of showing it. ]
Wrong again propagandist.
Here is a relevant quote from Michael's paper. [ Some might ask, "But didn't the Confederacy fire the first shot by shelling Fort Sumter in South Carolina?" In point of fact, Lincoln deliberately provoked the South into firing on Fort Sumter, and then he used the attack as a pretext for invading the seceded states. Several historians have noted that Lincoln knew that if he tried to resupply Fort Sumter, the Confederacy would probably decide to use force to prevent it. The Confederacy had been trying for weeks to arrange for the peaceful evacuation of the fort. And before the Confederacy took over the Fort Sumter negotiations, South Carolina had been trying for several weeks to negotiate a peaceful resolution. As mentioned, the Confederacy was prepared to pay compensation for all federal forts and property that were in Southern territory. Furthermore, Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, had promised the Confederacy the fort would be evacuated, but that promise was broken. Lincoln's own comments indicate he deliberately provoked the attack on Fort Sumter. I quote historian Francis Simkins,
By the time Lincoln took office Confederate authorities, fearing hasty action from South Carolina, had assumed control of the delicate Fort Sumter negotiations. . . . Would Lincoln pursue the dilatory course of Buchanan or would he be aggressive and forthright as the leader of the party which had condemned Buchanan's policy? He did neither. Instead, he carried out a plan of his own which was so devious, so subtle, and perhaps so confused that it is almost as difficult for the historian to understand as it was for the men of the times. Some scholars believe that he blundered into war, overestimating the strength of the Union party in the South. It is more likely that, with a subtlety approaching the diabolical, he provoked the Confederates into firing upon Fort Sumter in order to solidify North public opinion. . . .
Although Lincoln did not confess his part in provoking the Civil War with the cynical honesty of a Bismarck, he did speak certain revealing words. He consoled the commander of the Fort Sumter relief expedition for that officer's failure: "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." Shortly after the fall of the fort he was quoted by a close personal friend: "The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter--it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could." A few of his party friends congratulated him upon his masterful stroke. The New York Times believed that "the attempt at reinforcement was a feint--that its object was to put upon the rebels the full and clear responsibility of commencing the war. . . ." Jefferson Davis, others exulted, "ran blindly into the trap." (Simkins, A History of the South, Third Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963, pp. 213, 215-216, emphasis added)
Just two weeks before the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter, Secretary of State Seward warned Lincoln in a memorandum that any effort to resupply the fort would provoke a hostile response, and he advised Lincoln to evacuate the facility:
The dispatch of an expedition to supply or reinforce Sumter would provoke an attack and so involve a war at that point. . . . I would instruct Maj. Anderson [the commander of the federal troops at the fort] to retire from Sumter, forthwith. (Memorandum from Seward to Lincoln, "Opinion on Fort Sumter," March 29, 1861)
In fact, according to accounts of one of Lincoln's cabinet meetings in which the resupply of Fort Sumter was discussed, Lincoln told his cabinet that if South Carolina's artillery opened fire on the fort or on the resupply ship, "he could blame the Confederacy for starting a war" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 45).
So, yes, the Confederacy did fire on Fort Sumter. But, the Confederacy did this (1) only after Lincoln's Secretary of State had broken his promise to evacuate the fort, (2) only after the Confederacy had tried for weeks to arrange for the peaceful evacuation of the fort, (3) only after Lincoln had refused to meet with the peace delegation that Jefferson Davis had sent to Washington, (4) only after Lincoln had threatened an invasion if the Confederacy didn't allow the federal government to occupy and maintain federal buildings in Confederate territory (even though the South had offered to pay compensation for them), and (5) only after it became known that Lincoln had sent a ship to resupply the federal troops garrisoned at the fort. It should be mentioned that Lincoln didn't merely send a supply ship to Fort Sumter--he also sent warships. It should also be mentioned that not a single Union soldier was killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and that the soldiers were permitted to return in peace to the North after they surrendered.
Even the attack on Fort Sumter did not have to lead to war. The Confederacy made no hostile moves against any Northern state. But, two months after the Fort Sumter incident, a large Union force marched into Virginia, which led to the first major battle of the war, the Battle of Bull Run (or Manassas). ] End of text.
Quote: [ I'm trying to refute the Confederate based ones. ]
Wrong again propagandist. Michael T. Griffith grew up in the North. The Confederates were SLANDERED by the victors of the war.
All the money the North could no longer collect from Dixie... you’re not the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
How much was that?
... you’re not the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
Well we'll see once the questioning is over.
You're the one who says the South seceded because the Morill Tariff was bankrupting them and I'm the one spreading nonsensical blather and outright lies?
Here is a relevant quote from Northern scholar named Michael T. Griffith who looked into this topic.
Calling Mike Griffith a "Northern scholar" is like calling Barack Obama a "Southern conservative".
Northern tariffs were indeed bankrupting Dixie and the Morrill tariff was in the process of finishing the job. No one can dispute that. Michael T Griffith grew up in the North and as such is in fact an authentic Northerner and used to believe all the lies you posted until he did some investigative research to learn the truth. Over fifteen years ago I too was fairly ignorant on this issue and presumed the official version taught at school was correct until I too did some research into it and discovered that it was overwhelmingly based on Northern lies and propaganda. Look: it was a wake up call to learn how far we have been lied to about so many things but when you learn truthful and accurate information that shatters a delusion: you have to man up and accept it or continue to be at the mercy of the myth makers who craft propaganda to rationalize their brutal actions and tyrannical agenda. The people of Dixie were and are by and large an honorable people who were defamed after the war by their enemies who largely wrote the “history” of what they erroneously assert led up to the war.
But that's not what you said. You said it was the Morill Tariff that was bankrupting the South. And if it was the earlier tariffs that were causing the South such economic hardship then why did the Confederate Congress, as one of their first acts, adopt a tariff with exactly the same rates that were in effect the date they seceded? Link
Michael T Griffith grew up in the North and as such is in fact an authentic Northerner and used to believe all the lies you posted until he did some investigative research to learn the truth.
OK so let's look at that link you provided for Mike Griffith, Northern native and scholar extraordinaire. We don't have to go far, just the second paragraph.
I wonder if those who now demonize the Confederate flag are aware that by late 1864 the Confederacy was moving toward abolishing slavery, and that key Confederate leaders, including President Jefferson Davis and Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, supported ending slavery.
He's kind of right in this. In fact in 1864 I think it was, Davis sent an emissary to Europe promising to end slavery if exchange for diplomatic recognition. One question springs to mind right off the bat: where under the Confederate Constituion did Davis get the power to promise something like ending slavery? Unfortunately Mike doesn't say.
I also wonder if they’re aware that the Confederate Constitution permitted the admission of free states to the Confederacy...
It's pretty obvious the Mike has never read the Confederate Constitution. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
So it's pretty clear from that that it was NOT possible for a state to join the Confederacy as a free state.
...,that it banned the overseas slave trade...
It did, but it specifically protected slave trade with the U.S. (Article II, Section 9, Clause 1).
...and that it even allowed Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders.
Well, no it didn't: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1).
And the misinformation continues from there.
Look: it was a wake up call to learn how far we have been lied to about so many things
Looks to me like you're still asleep.
This debate cannot still cannot be going on in light of the trouncing you received. You can deny all you want how the Morrill Tariff was not in the process of bankrupting Dixie, but that does not change the facts. The Morrill Tariff was passed in the House of Representatives almost of year before the CSA was formed. Free states could in fact join the CSA if they so chose just as slave states chose to remain part of the Union. I notice that you use the diminutive and disrespectful Mike when referring to the respected and knowledgeable author Michael T Griffith betraying your contempt for someone who had the nerve to expose your bankrupt narrative. You also totally forget that the Confederate Constitution can be changed and or amended just as the American Constitution was and you also forget that Presidents often act arbitrarily on certain matters [ as Lincoln did during the war and as NUMEROUS American Presidents have since done ] therefore it would not have been out of the ordinary for President Davis to have acted as such in relation to abolishing slavery if it were to have gained the recognition of CSA independence from other countries around the world. You also forget that the CSA Congress passed a less severe tariff in the vain and futile hope that it would placate the North and avert the brewing war. To no avail of course as the North wanted more: hence the Morrill Tariff. The slander against Dixie was aimed at calumniating a people and an entire region for the crime of not submitting to oppressive taxation.
Somehow I managed to miss the part where I got trounced. Can you point me to it?
You can deny all you want how the Morrill Tariff was not in the process of bankrupting Dixie, but that does not change the facts.
Still waiting for facts.
The Morrill Tariff was passed in the House of Representatives almost of year before the CSA was formed.
And defeated in the Senate almost a year before the CSA was formed. It wasn't passed in the Senate until after the Confederacy had seceded. It didn't go into effect until after the Confederacy had seceded. So how was it bankrupting the South?
Free states could in fact join the CSA if they so chose just as slave states chose to remain part of the Union.
I strongly suggest you read the Confederate Constitution and explain to me how that would be possible in light of the protections it placed on slave ownership, especially in light of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3.
referring to the respected and knowledgeable author Michael T Griffith betraying your contempt for someone who had the nerve to expose your bankrupt narrative.
All his friends call him Mike.
You also totally forget that the Confederate Constitution can be changed and or amended just as the American Constitution was...
All we can go with is what we know and not rely on hypotheticals. Based on the Confederacy as it existed during the time Mike Griffith is talking about almost all of his claims concerning the ending of slavery are false and/or impossible.
...also forget that Presidents often act arbitrarily on certain matters [ as Lincoln did during the war and as NUMEROUS American Presidents have since done ]...
But all presidents are expected to abide by their constitution, as their oaths require them to do. Confederate supporters are always complaining about what they see are Lincoln's constitutional transgressions; are you saying that those were OK because that's what presidents do?
...therefore it would not have been out of the ordinary for President Davis to have acted as such in relation to abolishing slavery if it were to have gained the recognition of CSA independence from other countries around the world.
And again, there is absolutely nothing in the Confederate Constitution that gave him the power to do so. Any such actions on his part would have been illegal and, had there been a Confederate Supreme Court, would have made Davis liable for impeachment and removal from office.
You also forget that the CSA Congress passed a less severe tariff in the vain and futile hope that it would placate the North and avert the brewing war.
They passed that tariff in May 1861, a month after they had started the war. Their timing was a bit off.
The slander against Dixie was aimed at calumniating a people and an entire region for the crime of not submitting to oppressive taxation.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
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.