Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.
~ Lincoln
February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at vaviper.blogspot.com ...
.
Actually, their accent was German!
(ever put a can of earl in your motor?)
.
Having someone blockade your shipping with Warships to stop you from trading Directly with Europe will have that effect on your commerce.
The evidence that this was a money war is all about you, and you just don't want to see it.
Covered this several times, and since you won't listen, I don't see any point in going over it again, though I will make a brief recap for the benefit of others.
Navigation Act of 1817, coupled with the Tariff laws, coupled with New York being 800 miles closer to the European shipping, pretty much covers why New York cornered the vast majority of all trade.
Take away the Navigation act of 1817 and the requirement to pay High Tariff's in Charleston (under the Union) and the picture of the resulting trade changes dramatically.
New York loses, and everyone else gains.
Huh?
We wouldn’t have any of the subsequent amendments that are the heart and soul of the destruction of America.
I can pretty much guarantee that you would not have had a first amendment, or any other amendment that ended slavery. The Confederate Constitution pretty much made that impossible. Now what other amendments you all might have added is impossible to say.
Of course we know where your heart is.
I highly doubt that.
.
No surprise that you’re unaware of the real 13th amendment.
.
Oh good. You've raised your admitted value of Southern exports from 50% up to 60%. Perhaps if you keep doing your research, you will raise them up to the 73% that I cite from that book, or even up to the 83% that another Freeper says is supported by the Official record.
So the South produced 60% of all the export value, (Meaning they were paying at least 60% of all revenues to the Fed Gov) while having only 1/4th the citizen population of the North. And people wonder why they wouldn't let the South go free.
Because the law doesn't mean what you say the law means.
Navigation Act of 1817, coupled with the Tariff laws, coupled with New York being 800 miles closer to the European shipping, pretty much covers why New York cornered the vast majority of all trade.
Absolute nonsense. If there was any kind of demand for imported goods there is no reason why they could not have been brought directly to Southern ports. Neither the Navigation Act or any other act of Congress prevented goods from being imported into certain ports or prevented them from being exported from certain ports. The only thing governing that was simple economics.
Take away the Navigation act of 1817 and the requirement to pay High Tariff's in Charleston (under the Union) and the picture of the resulting trade changes dramatically.
Again, total nonsense. There is absolutely no reason why goods destined for Northern consumers should go to Southern ports. And if goods destined for Southern consumers went to New York because it was 800 miles closer then that would still be true even had the South won their rebellion.
There were two attempts at a 13th Amendment prior to the one that was ratified, and neither one dealt with "worshippers of the Temple Bar from holding public office." So nope, not a clue.
You've got this one mostly right.
.
It wasn’t an “attempt,” it was ratified, and buried by those whose US citizenship had been abolished.
.
Are we talking about the same 13th Amendment?
And you disagree, why, exactly?
Your statement above is based on what happened, rather than what would have happened had they been left alone. Of course when you use warships to stop other people's ability to trade, it's going to seriously damage their economy, while those same warships interdicting their trade and directing it to your ports will boost your own economy.
But it misses the point. You can't claim their plan was flawed based on your side's deliberate interference with their plan.
This reminds me of the people saying Chris McDaniel was a bad candidate, while ignoring the fact that the Rino/Establishment deliberately torpedoed him.
.
One nevers knows what you’re talking about.
.
I know we are getting into what if territory here, but I think the most likely outcome if the confederacy had been successful in their attempt at breaking away from the union would be another war between the US and the CS within 10-20 years. Here are the scenarios I think were most likely to happen;
1. Due to an increase in the Underground Railroad spiriting even more slaves north to freedom the CS petition the US to stop it. The US tells the CS to pound sand and the southerners feel their “honor” is besmirched and they declare war against the US.
2. The CS attempts to expand southward (Cuba or Central America), Britain says no way are we letting a slave country expand. They form an alliance with the US and war begins.
Just my two cents.
But of course you do know.
The first Confederate soldier to die in battle was Private Henry L. Wyatt of the 1st North Carolina Volunteers, later the 11th North Carolina Infantry Regiment, at the Battle of Big Bethel on June 10, 1861.
Before the first Confederate soldier's death, Confederates' actions had already produced:
In summary: Confederates were fighting all-out war against the United States for weeks and months before the Union seriously responded.
Rubbish.
The fact remains that protecting slavery was vitally important to 1861 Fire Eater secessionists as was emancipation to Northern abolitionists.
And while neither side went to war just for slavery, slavery was never far from the top of their priorities:
So it's not correct to say that slavery was unimportant to either side, but is correct to say slavery was not their only concern.
Good, good. We are now up to 61%. I've seen a 1% increase in your estimate in just the last 20 minutes of reading your messages. :)
But it's simply ludicrous to argue that Lincoln "tricked" Jefferson Davis into starting war at Fort Sumter.
The fact is that Davis had long since ordered Fort Sumter to be taken, by one method or another, meaning by surrender or by military assault.
In Davis' mind there was no option for Sumter to remain in Union hands, period.
That's why there was no "trick", Davis simply did what he was most inclined to do: order a military assault on troops who refused to surrender.
And Davis knew it was a mistake because he was warned:
That is not necessarily true. If the United States accepted the idea that the populations of states have a right to become independent, "and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...", then there would have been no need for a war. States could have joined the confederacy if/when they saw it in their best interest to do so.
More like, the Union would have had to adapt to the economic conditions caused by the South's embrace of lower tariff trade(not exactly free trade, but closer to it), and engage in less protectionism, less subsidies, and less tax and spend fiscal policy.
It might have caused Washington to have more discipline than it has now.
We are still occupying them. I have little doubt that were we to leave, there is a good chance the Germans would go back to making trouble again. I think there is something in the German psyche that just begs for a strong man forcing "order" on them and their neighbors.
They seemingly have a preference for dictators.
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.