Prelude To A New Civil War?

Not that anyone invited me and honestly don’t keep up with everyone posts on top of that I couldn’t even read all your comments. I am going to have to side with lamps on this one. I do like the shark jumping picture ;).

Honestly the people we are fighting today are the same throughout history. The powerful money that want to control us. That’s what the Civil War was about for the most part. mostly for the guys doing the fighting our side versus their side Battle. It’s time for another we can do it again. I suspect if we all went back 150 years ago we might see things differently than we do with this with revisionist history.

DiogenesLamp: "Tell me, are you familiar with the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?"

Sure, but it's not a "fallacy" if it's true.

In this case we're talking about Democrats who first opposed ratifying the Constitution, then supported nullification, secession and war against the United States and, since "Progressive" Wilson and New Deal FDR, they cheered on every expansion of Federal powers they can imagine.

By contrast, Republicans began as the party which voted to ratify the Constitution and fought ever since to preserve, protect and defend as much of it as possible from Democrats' onslaught.

Of course, nobody disputes that not all Democrats were/are perfectly evil -- since there's some good in the worst of them.
And not all Republicans were/are perfectly good -- since there's room to criticize even the best of them.

For an example of the former, I especially appreciate the way FDR won the Second World War, most unusual for a Democrat, but I attribute it to his "inheriting" a bit of his "Uncle" Teddy's Republican spirits.

So you see, it has nothing to do with "no true Scotsman..."

x: "I meant to say, "in the North."
Because there were more free working people in the North, and more stores and businesses. "

Here are the facts as we know them:

In 1860 the US imported a total of $368 million not including specie of $9 million.
Of that, 76% was tariffed -- $280 million.
Federal income from those tariffs was $55 million.
According to DiogenesLamp's map (here), 74% of tariffs collected were in New York.
But what percent of those tariffs were "paid for" by Confederate state exports, was it the 75%-85% DiogenesLamp claims?
No of course not.
It was only theoretically 50% -- the ratio of cotton (~$200 million) to total exports (~$400 million), but even that has to be reduced by the value of Northern exports to the South ~$200 million.
In short, the real story here is that Confederate state 1860 exports paid for $200 million in Southern imports from the North.

Those $200 million Northern exports to the South "paid for" the import tariffs which supported Federal government in Washington, DC.
That's the big-picture "money flow" which has DiogenesLamp so excited for his Confederate brethren to grab & keep.

wgmalabama: "Not that anyone invited me..."

No invitations required, but I sincerely request that you make a monthly contribution to Free Republic. ;-)
Then you can say whatever's on your mind to whomever you'd like here.
Yes, you can be blunt & impolite, but there are rules, even here, so be sure you don't cross any lines.
BTW, DiogenesLamp is especially good at that, which makes him more fun than many to engage.

wgmalabama: "...on top of that I couldn’t even read all your comments."

It might help if you remember that those of us here defending the Union cause almost never start it.
It often takes dozens of posts by Lost Causers for us to realize there's a rumble on -- we're first responders, you might say, to a train wreck of history.
So, if you see long responses from any of us, it's only because a Lost Causer has packed a lot of nonsense into their posts and it takes time to unpack & refute all of it.

So you may ask: why do that? Why not just trade insults and be done with it?
Well, the answer is: that is what some do, even on our side.
But most of us love our history too much to let it be trashed without reasonable responses.

wgmalabama: "I am going to have to side with lamps on this one."

Of course you do, since unlike, ahem, some posters you find no shame in telling us where you're from, and DiogenesLamp, though a northerner, is here defending your cause, quite often about as well as it can be defended, imho.

wgmalabama: "Honestly the people we are fighting today are the same throughout history.
The powerful money that want to control us."

Well... "we" are politically fighting Democrats, the party which:

began life in 1788 as the faction opposed to ratifying the Constitution
soon invented & practiced "nullification" and "interposition"
ruled Washington, DC, before 1861,
declared secession & war against the United States, then
50 years later began expanding Federal powers through "progressive" (Wilson) and New Deal (FDR) administrations into the monstrosity we see today.

Today's Democrats are pretty much the same as they've always been: in opposition to Constitutional values they are authoritarian when in power (think fugitive slave laws, Japanese internment and literal mountains of regulations imposed on the US economy), they are rebellious & violent when out of power (think Civil War and today's "resistance").

So what about those nefarious "Northeastern power brokers" who have DiogenesLamp so excited he can't stop decrying them?
Weren't they the "hidden power" pulling Lincoln's strings behind the scenes?

Noooooo, they were Democrats, just as today.
They were Northern Democrats whose alliance with Southern Democrat planters ruled in Washington, DC, from ~1800 until secession in 1861.
Those Northern Democrats were political allies, economic partners and social bosom-buddies to their Southern Democrat planter friends.
When Southern Democrats began declaring secession, many Northern Democrats wanted to join them.
They wanted to declare New York an independent state in alliance with the Confederacy.

Only months later, after Confederates began reneging on their debts and revoking their payments to Northern banks, then most Northern Democrats flipped to support "Lincoln's war".
But not all... many Northern Democrats only "flipped" from being called obsequious "doughfaces" to supporting Confederates as "copperheads".

wgmalabama: "That’s what the Civil War was about for the most part. mostly for the guys doing the fighting our side versus their side Battle."

"Our side" are the pro-Constitution Federalists, Whigs, Americans, Constitutional Unionists & Republicans.
"Their side" are the anti-Constitution anti-Federalist Democrats.

wgmalabama: " I suspect if we all went back 150 years ago we might see things differently than we do with this with revisionist history."

If we all went back 158 years, slavery would not be an issue for us, we'd all demand it abolished immediately.
The "moderates" amongst us might well allow for gradual phase-out plus compensation, but the process would begin right away.

Now if slavery is removed as an issue, what other reasons do Fire Eaters have for secession?
Well, tariffs, they'd say.
But the new Morrill Tariff was defeated so long as Democrats remained strong, and besides its overall rates were not higher than average for previous decades.

"Well", Fire Eaters would say, "Washington, DC, didn't spend enough money in the South."
We'd respond: "but Democrats ran Washington, DC, from ~1800 until 1861, so what didn't you get that you wanted?"
"We want more", say Fire Eaters, "we want our fair share of the 75% of Federal revenues which we in 'the South' pay for by our exports."
"Well, maybe", we'd say, "but do you export all that cotton all by yourselves?
Aren't there others involved in the process, others who may or may not be Southern?"
Don't such people deserve fair compensation too?"

At this point our hypothetical conversation must end, even though DiogenesLamp thinks this is the real nub of the problem -- Northern participation in Southern wealth creation.
According to DiogenesLamp Southern Democrats wanted to get rid of their Northern Democrat partners and Northerners didn't want to let them go.
So it was really "all about" economics according to DiogenesLamp.

The problem is that all such ancillary issues were rendered minor by Confederates' overwhelming concerns to protect slavery -- see their "Reasons for Secession" documents.
If we from the future take slavery off the table, then Southerners were no more likely to declare secession in 1860 than they were in 1850 or 1840, etc.
Indeed, once we take slavery off the table, then Democrats in 1860 do not split their party North vs. South and so are just as likely to win the 1860 election as they were in 1856.

Without the slavery issue dividing North vs. South, Southern Democrats would likely still rule in Washington, DC.
Indeed, here's just what the Union looks like absent a slavery issue: