Posted on 10/14/2007 7:14:10 AM PDT by proudofthesouth
So you accepted it at face value without question? What about the information I posted? Does it shake your faith in Tommy's information or are you still willing to take his word in spite of evidence to the contrary? You have to admit that's quite a difference, going from about $10 million to over $100 million without the South providing the 80% of tariff revenue claimed.
It has been my experience that when people attempt to refute something by demanding details that nobody can provide (or at least cannot provide without a lot of work for which they will not be reimbursed), they are not really interested in the answer even if it were eventually available.
If the information is not available then how can one say that it is true? That's the problem with you Southron types, you are willing to believe anything no matter how outrageous so long as it gives you an excuse for the Southern rebellion no connected with slavery.
An obvious point southerners have always had trouble understanding. If tariffs were a real Union breaker there would have been strong secession impulses in the Midwest. Also if tariffs had been the cause of secession, the southerners should have made common cause with Douglas Democrats to defeat the tariff instead of splitting up the Democratic Party and assuring Republican victory.
People go a long way to defend the indefensible and the Union breaking plan of the greedy political slaveowning class was the most indefensible act our land has ever seen.
If I were to insist that just because abortion is a hot topic today, it would be silly for some historian in a hundred years to insist that the only reason the Free State Project wants to take over New Hampshire or the only reason that they want Vermont to secede from the Union is because of reproductive rights.
Likewise, it is just silly to insist that the North invaded the South for one reason. Nevertheless, we have in Lincoln’s own words in his First Inaugural Address that if the South continued to pay whatever taxes that Washington levied, **there would be no invasion**. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back, adding a final reason to several others.
You do make a statement that goes directly to the heart of the original subject of this thread:
“You are aware, I hope, that the entire federal budget of 1860 was $60M?”
Yes, indeed. As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong), at the start of the war, the entire Department of Justice had only 14 employees. The war clearly marked the triumph of the Nationalists, who wanted to take the United states and force those sovereign states to obey and be functioning units of one Nation, directed out of Washington and for the benefit of Washington. The war defeated the federated structure of the union, which no longer was a voluntary union and was now a shotgun marriage with the shotgun residing in the District of Columbia.
The states were never sovereign. The restrictions on the states in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution show that the states were not sovereign.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
That is obvious.
Google Copperheads to see what the left was up to then.
Not exactly what he said.
" I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. ...
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
Jeff Davis and the Confederacy chose war.
A reassertion of powers divided between the States and the Federal government hasn't completely been abandoned, but we are headed that way. Beware following the example of contintental Europe in that regard........
What actually took place was that Lincoln made law foremost and upfront in the public arena; having studied it and being somewhat mentored in it, he set about on an ambitious course of bringing his early successes in applying local laws in disputes among landowners, boundary demarcation and territorial preeminence to a national level when the national map was but a mere third of what it now encompasses.
He, alone among all the rest of the ambitious and restless men, saw in 1860 what the future could bring - not just increasing wealth and trade but a chance to remake and expand the unexplored frontier that lay to the west even while shrouded in tales, myths and disappointing opportunities, still beckoned as a siren.
Having had no personal contact with the Negro other than the time he spent on the Mississippi River while piloting a rather ramshackle boat he learned real fast the importance of making friends with important people in high places and the persuasive qualities of high-falutin’ speech so it was but a small step to make a landmark declaration superseding the Constitution itself.
Desperate for the all-important second term, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, mandated that all the union troops vote in the election before deployment (where they might die before November 1864), and single-handledly declared himself the tax collector for the entire nation.
But he was a good republican and he did enjoy a night at the opera.
The vast majority of liberals in the House and the Senate have always been and still are men (admittedly some are gender-confused). According to 2004 statistics, more women than men voted. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf) So how is the downhill trend women’s fault?
There seems to be a trend here all right, one that started with Adam blaming Eve for the fruit he voluntarily ate, despite his receiving instructions directly from God to not do so.
General selfishness and irresponsibility from all sectors is where I put the blame.
I just came from a full day at Lookout Mountain and it is incredible what took place.
“But isn’t God in control?”
Yes, God is very much in control.
Psalm 24:1 A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein.
“God could stop this madness at any time and for whatever reason he has he doesn’t stop it.”
Daniel 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”
Why do we have a world of madness?
When the world rejects the truth, they will be blinded by Satan.
2 Thessalonians 2:
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
People don’t reject the truth because they are blind; they are blinded because they have rejected the truth.
They work so hard to disprove the Bible, but they believe in
Aristotle, who wrote from 384 - 322 BC, the first copy of his work was found in 1,100 AD and there are 5 copies in existence.
Caesar wrote from 100 - 44 BC first copy found 900 AD 10 copies in existence.
Tacitus wrote in 100 AD first copy 1,100 AD 20 copies.
But they don’t believe in the Bible:
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell’s Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
What’s more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur’an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
Will God stop the madness?
Absolutely, and I believe it will be soon.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&version=45
He suspended the writ for the first time in April 1861, almost 3 and a half years before the election for his all-important second term. And I'd be interested in your documentation for claim number 2 and claim number 3.
having studied it and being somewhat mentored in it
He was the preeminent lawyer in IL, admittedly a rather backwoods place at the time.
the national map was but a mere third of what it now encompasses.
Not sure what period you're talking about, but after the Mexican War the US expansion on the continent was all but completed.
He, alone among all the rest of the ambitious and restless men, saw in 1860 what the future could bring - not just increasing wealth and trade but a chance to remake and expand the unexplored frontier that lay to the west
By 1860 the frontier was pretty thoroughly explored, although not well-settled yet.
he learned real fast the importance of making friends with important people in high places and the persuasive qualities of high-falutin’ speech so it was but a small step to make a landmark declaration superseding the Constitution itself.
Many have accused Lincoln of eloquence. Few have accused him of high-falutin’ speech. He seldom if ever spoke in an ostentatious or pretentious way.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not supercede the Constitution. It was a legitimate exercise of war powers, confiscating the property of rebels that was being used in the service of the rebellion.
Desperate for the all-important second term, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus
This was done in 1861 during the emergency when DC was undefended, and was later confirmed by act of Congress.
mandated that all the union troops vote in the election before deployment
A truly evil act.
and single-handledly declared himself the tax collector for the entire nation.How exactly did he do this? All federal taxes were voted in by Congress, as the Constitution requires, and state taxes continued to be voted and collected by the states.
further, there are "different rules" for the powerful.
more important, we have an ELITE which controls our government from the top. to me at least, that is the MAIN thing that separates a plutocracy from a FREE nation.)
free dixie,sw
So the fact that the states agreed to refrain from doing those few things delineated in Article 1, Section 10 equates to them having surrendered their sovereignty?
You are aware aren't you that the father of the constitution himself (James Madison) disagrees with you most strongly in The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 as does Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Resolution of that same year 1798.
The 1800s were full of changes in industry, technology, religion, art, music, education, transportation, communication, politics, the economy, etc. The changes in all these areas influenced all the other areas. If I had to pick one event that has a direct causal relationship to all the world's troubles, I'd say it had to do with eating fruit from a certain tree....
damn right sistah.
PREACH IT!!!
KNOW YOUR ROLE!!!
“Acceptance of George Washington’s admonition against foreign entanglements is our best chance for a reversal.”
Washington was not an isolationist and expected that the destiny of America was to become a world-wide trading nation and that free-trade was an American interest. In this same belief, Thomas Jefferson, and his successor used our national resources, diplomatic and military, in our national interest, against the pirate city-states of North Africa.
The “foreign entanglements” that Washington was cautioning against were the empire rivalries between competing European states; and to the extent we could, and until/except where, those rivalries adversely impacted our interests - as they did in WWI and WWII, most Presidents most often tried to follow Washington’s lead and help us avoid them.
Washington’s admonishment never assumed that world events would not place Americas’ real interests in alliance with others and against others, only that we needed to be sure that was the case and not simply take sides for the benefit of one or the other where even our shared interests were not manifest.
In truth, our diplomatic affairs is the area where our leaders have demonstrated a greater contrast with Washington’s admonishment than they have committed with our military affairs. But, since the founding of the Republic it is mostly only on the canard of our military affairs that Washington’s admonishment has been brought out to oppose a policy and usually, in my view, in ignorance of his intent.
Tariffs are taxes on imports. DiLorenzo relies on earlier estimates of exports and shares out the import taxes on that basis. It's only a guess, and it's not the best one.
The problem is that he doesn't take into account trade between North and South and simply assumes that each region dealt directly with foreign countries, so that imports and exports would balance out.
But since Southerners bought many goods from the North and invested money in Northern banks, the Northern share of imports may have been higher than his pro-Southern biased sources admit.
More here: "The "80% of tariffs from the South" claim: totally unsupported."
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.