In the New York Times, the North is still fighting the war against the South

American Thinker ^ | 12/29/2020 | Andrea Widburg

[BroJoeK]

Monterrosa: "Several coastal states in the South banned the importation of slaves long before the secession."

More important, before secession, all Southern states came under the US Constitution and laws of Congress which in 1807 outlawed any further importations of slaves from outside the USA.

These laws were strongly supported by Southern states like Virginia & Maryland which had "surplus" slaves they wanted to "export" to the Cotton South.
But the anti-import laws were opposed and sometimes violated in the Deep South by those who didn't appreciate the high prices demanded by Virginians & others further north.

At the Confederate Constitution convention, the interests of slave "exporting" states like Virginia won out over those of "importers" further South.

Once Civil War began, the Union blockade prevented any further known slave imports from outside the CSA.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You left out US federal contracts for northern shipping (New York mostly) that made it impossible for Southern shipping companies to compete with them."

And who ruled over the Federal Government in Washington, DC, from 1801 until secession in 1861?
Southern Democrats!

Including four Southern Democrat presidents, at least two Northern "Doughfaced" presidents, plus three Southern Whig presidents, along with control over both Houses of Congress for 46 years (!) and the US Supreme Court effectively the entire time.

Southern Democrats were only ever completely out of power in Washington for the two years from 1841 to 1843, during the time Southern Whig Presidents Harrison & Tyler.
Southern Democrats controlled the President and both Houses of Congress for 42 of those years and yet, you claim, could not correct a problem which then drove them to secession?

That's pure nonsense, lies & propaganda.

DiogenesLamp: "Fishing subsidies, mail carrying contracts and other such set asides to protect New York's industries, and mostly paid for by the Southern states which contributed 73% of the total US Federal budget."

"...Southern states which contributed 73% of the total US Federal budget" is an epic lie worthy of Democrats even today.
The truth is vastly more complicated and begins with: the Cotton South produced roughly half (not 73%) of US exports, but spent nearly all their earnings in the North on Northern manufactured goods.
Those Northern "exports" to the South allowed Northerners to import goods on which tariffs made up circa 90% of Federal revenues.
So the connection of cotton to Federal budget is indirect at best, and only half at most, unless by "the South" you mean everyone living South of New York City.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This is exactly correct.
All federal laws of the era were intended to protect New York and north eastern business interests, same then as it is now today."

That is exactly a lie.
All federal laws of the era were written by Southern Democrats for the benefit of Southern Democrats, period.
Southern Democrats only became fearful of Washington, DC, when Republicans took over, in 1861.

[DiogenesLamp]

but spent nearly all their earnings in the North on Northern manufactured goods.

Because they were *FORCED* to do so by Federal law. European products were far cheaper and would have displaced all northern products in Southern markets but for the compelled protectionist policies of Washington DC. (Washington DC has always protected the Interests of the Wealthy elite powerful in the North East, and still does so today.)

And 73% is a quite well sourced number written using contemporary records of the time, and by a Northern Man named Thomas Kettell.

[DiogenesLamp]

Warehousing act. Navigation act of 1817. Mail carrying subsidies. Federal fishing subsidies. Railroad construction projects paid for by the feds. All the laws of that era were beneficial to the North east and usually at the expense of the Southern states.

As you yourself have provided sources in the past, 60% of all the Southern export sales ended up in the pockets of New York and Washington DC robber barons.

This is why they had no trouble passing the Corwin Amendment through a heavily Republican congress despite pretending to oppose slavery.

It fit the interests of the rich and powerful men of the North East to keep the South funneling all their money through North Eastern pockets, both selling and buying.

If permanent slavery was the cost, the 1861 Republicans were certainly willing to pay it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are stuck on that "Democrat" label as if it means something."

It means everything!
Democrats have ALWAYS been the party opposed to the United States and willing to DO ANYTHING to destroy whatever they couldn't rule over.
That was as true in 1860 as it is today.

DiogenesLamp: "In 1860, the Democrats were the party of small government."

Nonsense, "strict construction" was strictly a political weapon against their opponents -- Federalists, Whigs, Republicans.
Whenever Democrats themselves were in power in Washington, they did whatever the h*ll they wanted to, the Constitution be d*mn*d.

DiogenesLamp: "They opposed tax increases.
They supported the right of states to manage their own sovereignty within their own boundaries"

Except when they didn't.
Democrats raised taxes in 1805, 1819, 1825, 1829 and again in 1845.
And when it came to fugitive slaves, Southern Democrats cared nothing about Northern states' "sovereignty".
The Democrat SCOTUS in 1857 even declared African Americans could never be citizens, even when for all practical purposes they already were citizens in several Northern states!

DiogenesLamp: "They wanted federal spending controlled and did not support government ran tax and spend projects. "

But only when their political opponents (i.e., Federalists) were in charge.
Once Democrats like Jefferson, Madison & Monroe came to power, all those things they opposed for Federalists, they themselves did, including what we today call "infrastructure" projects.

DiogenesLamp: "The Republicans were race obsessed big city liberals that had their fingers in every government funded pie that came down the pike, and they wanted increased taxes to fund all their tax and spend government projects which incidentally always benefited their wealthy elite at the expense of everyone else. "

Total nonsense.
Then as now, Democrats were the party of Big City immigrants and globalist mercantile interests which integrally included Southern slavers.
Democrats opposed federal spending for their opponents, but found plenty of money for their own projects.
Then as now Democrats cared nothing for the Constitution except when it could be weaponized against political opponents.

Republicans, then as now, are the party of rural, small town, suburban, independent small businesses, skilled workers, professionals, traditional values, defenders of the US Constitution.
Our interest in "race" is mainly to defend ourselves against those Democrats who weaponize it against us (i.e., Dred Scott).

DiogenesLamp: "In other words, 1860 Democrats were modern Republicans, and 1860 Republicans were modern Democrats."

In other words, that is the Biggest of Big Lies which Democrats want the world to believe -- through massive repetitions and distortions of the actual facts of history.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Because they were *FORCED* to do so by Federal law."

By Federal laws which Southern Democrats wrote!

DiogenesLamp: "And 73% is a quite well sourced number written using contemporary records of the time, and by a Northern Man named Thomas Kettell."

Kettell did not intend his book to justify Southern secession, though that was its effect.
The figure of 73% is a matter of definitions, beginning with, what is "the South", and where do Federal revenues come from?
Kettle only intended to show how North & South were economically dependent on each other.
But the real truth is the North was not as dependent on the South as Kettle's statistic might suggest.

That's what Civil War demonstrated.

[DoodleDawg]

The north ALWAYS accuses the south of continuing to fight the Civil War, when it is in fact the north that is ALWAYS the one bringing it up.

Haven't been on a lot of Civil War threads around here, have you?

[DoodleDawg]

The Confederate Constitution banned the importation of slaves.

It protected the importing of slaves from the U.S. in Article 1, Section 9.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Warehousing act.
Navigation act of 1817.
Mail carrying subsidies. Federal fishing subsidies.
Railroad construction projects paid for by the feds.
All the laws of that era were beneficial to the North east and usually at the expense of the Southern states. "

All those laws written by Southern Democrats for the benefit of Democrats, all later lies & Southern propaganda notwithstanding.

DiogenesLamp: "As you yourself have provided sources in the past, 60% of all the Southern export sales ended up in the pockets of New York and Washington DC robber barons. "

I'm pretty sure you misremember some quote from several years ago.
The actual number was far less than 60% and it represented only a small percentage of total Southern exports.
Further, in any average American business today, the net profits are under 10%, so whenever you quote profit numbers like 60% you are in a realm of fantasy & misunderstanding.

Normal business expenses are not, somehow, "profit".

DiogenesLamp: "This is why they had no trouble passing the Corwin Amendment through a heavily Republican congress despite pretending to oppose slavery. "

The 1860 Republican party platform did not call for abolishing slavery in the South, only for preventing slavery's expansion into US territories and Northern states.
That's why Fire Eaters declared secession.

Corwin was an attempt to reassure Southern slaveholders, supported by ALL Democrats and opposed by the MAJORITY of Republicans in Congress.
It had limited effect and went nowhere.

[x]

Yes, in the years leading up to the Civil War, Democrats controlled all branches of the federal government most of the time and Southerners dominated in the Democratic Party.

Think about it for a minute. The policy from 1820 to 1850 was to balance new slave states against new free states. Before California was admitted, there were as many slave states as free states.

So the chances of New York imposing itself on the South were slim. If you had votes of the slave states and a few votes from free states, you could control the Senate and block legislation that you didn't want.

Ironically, too, by killing the Philadelphia-based National Bank, Jackson and the Southern-dominated Democratic Party did much to confirm New York's role as the country's financial center.

Mail delivery benefited the entire country and people in all parts of the country benefited financially from mail contracts. As for federal subsidies for railroad construction, those began in earnest during the Civil War. The South wanted to get in on the action as well in the days leading up to the war. We have Tucson because the federal government bought the land for the eventual construction of a Southern rail route to the Pacific.

The gripes about mail contracts and fisheries sound like the little things between couples that you don't know about until your spouse starts talking divorce. In the years leading up to the Civil War, a lot of land west of the Appalachians was surveyed by the federal government and roads were built or projected. Southern harbors were dredged. Navigation channels on the Mississippi were improved by removing snags. And of course, forts were built to protect us from Indians. But Northeasterners didn't complain much about those things because they were all seen as essential national policies.

[icclearly]

“DiLorenzo is a propagandist trafficking in distortions & lies.”

Your belief is your right. Your opinion clearly does not make it so. Over 2,500 people between Amazon and Goodreads rated it a four or five. They must have found it to be factual.

Have you read the book?

I have and find it to be true.

[NCSUgirl4ever]

LOLLOLLOL

[jmacusa]

Diogenes should be paying for the education you're giving him Bro Joe K. As I've pointed out many times before here it's beyond galling to listen to these Democrats in Republican clothing come here and moan and wail about how people like myself and others here ‘’hate Southerners!'' Nonsense. I don't hate Southerners. I hate the Confederacy and everything it stood for. As far as ''hating'' anyone, hate is a powerful emotional investment to make and it can often bankrupt the investor. I invest wisely in this prospectus. I will say I intensely dislike modern day Democrats.

[Pelham]

“I’ve noticed that for many years. The north ALWAYS accuses the south of continuing to fight the Civil War, when it is in fact the north that is ALWAYS the one bringing it up.”

To illustrate your point just peruse any thread about the South and watch who shows up.

[BroJoeK]

x: "The policy from 1820 to 1850 was to balance new slave states against new free states.
Before California was admitted, there were as many slave states as free states. "

And during most of that period, Southern imposed "gag rules" in Congress prevented any meaningful discussion of issues related to slavery.

x: "Ironically, too, by killing the Philadelphia-based National Bank, Jackson and the Southern-dominated Democratic Party did much to confirm New York's role as the country's financial center."

Jackson was an anomaly among Southern Democrats -- first and foremost a patriot, he would risk civil war rather than see the country split apart.
Second, he was more determined than any other President to put our financial house in order, he maintained ruinously high tariff rates long enough to both pay off the national debt and encourage domestic manufacturing, including in the South.

As for Jackson's anti-national bank policies potentially helping out New York City, I'm not sure if that was his intention.
I think rather he wanted each state to deal with its own finances and for the Federal government to operate in the black, no Federal debts, so no need for a national bank.

x: "We have Tucson because the federal government bought the land for the eventual construction of a Southern rail route to the Pacific."

And just so we're clear on this: that 1854 Gadsden Purchase was the pet project of Mississippi Democrat Senator and Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, who planned the Southern route to pass near his home on the Mississippi River.
So much for "strict constructionist" Democrats.

x: "In the years leading up to the Civil War, a lot of land west of the Appalachians was surveyed by the federal government and roads were built or projected.
Southern harbors were dredged.
Navigation channels on the Mississippi were improved by removing snags.
And of course, forts were built to protect us from Indians.
But Northeasterners didn't complain much about those things because they were all seen as essential national policies."

Right, my point exactly.
Studies have shown that over time, Federal spending roughly equaled out, North, South, East & West, but in their secession documents, Southern Democrats complained (and Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp endlessly repeat) most Federal spending went "up North".

For a long time I though it was just another typical Democrat Big Lie, but then eventually realized that, from the perspective of, say, Charleston, South Carolina, nearly all of the country is "up North" of them!

[BroJoeK]

icclearly on DiLorenzo: "Have you read the book?
I have and find it to be true."

Then you are a self-deluding America hater, typical Democrat.
I have seen & refuted DiLorenzo's misrepresentations posted endlessly on Free Republic Civil War related threads.
I wouldn't get past the third page of his book before I first shoot the d*mned thing, then burn it as a pack of America-hating lies, not fit for existence.

You must have a deep loathing for your country to find DiLorenzo truthful & satisfying.

But that's why Free Republic is here -- to council & help lost souls like yours, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

euram: "The north ALWAYS accuses the south of continuing to fight the Civil War, when it is in fact the north that is ALWAYS the one bringing it up."

Pelham: "To illustrate your point just peruse any thread about the South and watch who shows up."

It is ALWAYS Southerners who hate & lie about the United States first, followed by those of us who defend & tell the truth of the USA.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "Diogenes should be paying for the education you're giving him Bro Joe K."

Sadly, our FRiend DiogenesLamp is a very slow learner, in fact he refuses to learn anything which doesn't contribute to his Lost Cause mythology.

jmacusa: "As I've pointed out many times before here it's beyond galling to listen to these Democrats in Republican clothing come here and moan and wail about how people like myself and others here ‘’hate Southerners!'' "

I am half Southern, but my "Southern half" is from Unionist western North Carolina, some of whose ancestors suffered & died at the hands of Confederates in what is known as "the Shelton-Laurel Massacre".
They were not slaveholders and usually voted for whichever political party opposed Southern Democrats, be they Federalists, Whigs or eventually, Republicans.

jmacusa: "As far as ''hating'' anyone, hate is a powerful emotional investment to make and it can often bankrupt the investor. "

For years now my argument on these threads has been that since Day One Democrats were the party which opposed ratifying the Constitution in 1788, and have hated the United States ever since -- sometimes more intensely than others, and over time for different reasons.
"Rule or ruin" is the Democrat mindset.

[icclearly]

“to council & help lost souls like yours, FRiend”

My Friend, you don’t need to worry about my soul. It is in perfectly good hands.

Look, we happen to agree on many things (Trump, our country) but certainly not everything.

By the way, my country seems to be leaving me and not the other way around.

I grew up in the deep south. I served my country (voluntarily) and would go again for the right cause (”right” is the active word), although I’m not sure I would be worth anything, now (physically anyway) :-). I still am a pretty good shot, though.

We disagree on DiLorenzo. I saw and lived the results and consequences of the CW war from a first-hand point of view 100 years later. We lost. Too bad. I get that. I had relatives who fought in that war. I heard their stories as they were passed down. War is hell and that war was no different. But, from what I heard and saw DiLorenzo was more right than wrong. If I lived north of the old Mason Dixon line I might feel the same as you. But, I don’t.

As I said you can disagree, but it does not change a thing with me or my soul.

Today our country finds itself in a very similar situation to 1861, albeit with different geography and different issues — but just as divided.

By the way, if you are a student of history, we find ourselves (Anglo society) in very chaotic events about every 80 or so years (about a normal lifespan). Now, Depression/WWII, Civil War, Revolutionary War, Glorius Revolution (England), and even back to the War of the Roses (England).

Unless things change we are headed to a Biden inauguration and perhaps even a full sweep (Republican Senate). If that happens, when the history is written it will be exactly what you hear on all of the mainstream media today. Our great-grandchildren will not know the difference. We will both be relegated to nutcases and Trump will be demeaned in history the same way.

All I am saying is that there were two sides to the story in 1861 and history only tells one side of that story. That’s life. Nothing is new under the sun.

Thank you. Bye.