Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
What a strange thing to read in a discussion over a controversial war.
I hope your grand kids do not ask you to explain the difference between first degree murder and justifiable homicide.
LOL! You Rebs are a whole lot of fun.
“It's very unlikely that most of those imports made their way South.”
But you do not know that and it is an absurd conclusion based on your opinion, which we all know is highly biased.
In the past you have been given the data on this subject from posters such as GopCapitalist, Rustbucket and myself, but you show no evidence of intellectual curiosity.
Had you considered the data, you would see how wrong you are.
Facts do not produce absurd conclusions without a bit of bias...and yours is on display for all to see.
True. But they also provide means for George Soros to do his evil with 'nonprofit' tax protection, allow white liberal 'elites' to live like royalty - using American taxpayers as their private ATM machines... And tax benefits allow corrupt evil inner city democrats to buy favors and fleece the black community... It's not all 'roads' or defense - much of it is slush funds for evil white liberal elites.
I haven't seen any "data" except Diogenes's silly drawing, which doesn't prove what he claims it does, and a random, unsourced statistic you pulled out of your backside.
If you have accurate figures that show that more imported goods ended up in the South than in the North and if you can provide a legitimate source for them, then produce them now, or crawl back into your cave and die.
One thing to be truly thankful for in this holiday season: we may be entering a second decade of not hearing from "GopCapitalist" - assuming he's not still lurking here under another alias.
I do find this fine post from him from a decade and a half back, though:
The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population. The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties. There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statis tics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples. There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff. There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious rea sons). Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron indus try in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels. One can come up with many more examples. Source
Interesting find that proves the old adage about blind squirrels finding their nutz!
The facts are that if the 14 Senators from the seceding States had remained in the Senate, the Morrill Tariff Act would have been voted down. The President of the Senate, John C. Breckenridge, would not have had to cast the deciding vote on March 2 1861.
Is the conclusion absurd?
Hope you don’t have to explain to your grandkids that it to years of war to end slavery in this country.
with good there is bad.
>>SoCal Pubbie quoting Sherman: “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
>>MeneMeneTekelUpharsin wrote: “I wholeheartedly agree. Even my dad didn’t like my point of view. However, if one side wants war, then give it to them.”
There is no doubt that Lincoln wanted war.
Mr. Kalamata
Yeah, sure. I suppose Jefferson Davis just wanted to sip juleps on the veranda.
Anyone who has studied the history of that day understands the South bore the brunt of the burden of the protective tariff.
**************
>>TheNext wrote: "The tax was never repealed. Taxes get repealed by blood or poverty."
>>x wrote: "Tariffs in the 19th century went up and down, depending on which party was in power. Taxes on imports changed over time but weren't completely abolished because they were one of the main ways government paid for itself."
The Constitution gave the congress the power to lay uniform duties:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." [Law, "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787, Article I.8]
The Congress was prohibited from laying duties on exports:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." [Ibid. Article I.9]
The South overwhelmingly relied on exports, which were protected by the Constitution from export duties; but the South also received little direct benefit from import duties. The result was, the South paid higher prices on Northern goods and imports. Something that is often overlooked is the tariff resulted in a decrease in cash flow among foreign nations, which led to less demand for Southern exports.
The South wasn't against a protective tariff, only the unfair ones:
"These [duties] and some other distinctly protective provisions were defended by Calhoun, mainly on the ground of the need of making provision for the exigencies of another war; and on that ground they were adopted, and at the same time limited. The general increase of duties under the act of 1816, to an average of about twenty per cent., was due to the necessity of providing for the payment of the interest on the heavy debt contracted during the war." [Reasons for Tariff of 1816, in Frank W. Taussig, "The Tariff History of the United States." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, pp.18-19]
"The act of 1846 remained in force till 1857, when a still further reduction of duties was made. The revenue was redundant in 1857, and this was the chief cause of the reduction of duties. The measure of that year was passed with little opposition, and was the first tariff act since 1816 that was not affected by politics.' It was agreed on all hands that a reduction of the revenue was imperatively called for, and, except from Pennsylvania, there was no opposition to the reduction of duties made in it." [Ibid. The Tariff, 1830-1860, p.115]
Mr. Kalamata
>>Implied previously, now stated for emphasis: Lincoln’s War was not a civil war.
True. It was an invasion of a sovereign nation.
Mr. Kalamata
The right of secession was written into the Virginia Ratification document:
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States." ["Virginia's Ratification Convention." June 26, 1788]
Two other states also specifically reserved the right of secession.
"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution." ["New York Ratification Convention." July 26, 1788]
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution." ["Rhode Island Ratification Convention." May 29, 1790]
The acceptance of those states into the Union enshrined the right of secession into the Constitution as a Supreme Law of the Land.
Mr. Kalamata
Those “feel good” provisions hold no weight of law.
Logical fallacy. I have studied the history and do not believe that at all.
>>SoCal Pubbie wrote: “Yeah, sure. I suppose Jefferson Davis just wanted to sip juleps on the veranda.”
True. The historical record shows the South wanted to be left alone. Lincoln, on the other hand, carried out his threat of invasion as plainly stated in his Inaugural Address — and his invasion had nothing to do with slavery.
Mr. Kalamata
>>rockrr wrote: “Those “feel good” provisions hold no weight of law.<<
The Constitution is the Law, except to the lawless.
Mr. Kalamata
Exactly.
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.