Leaving aside for a moment your unfamiliarity of Confederate history, even had South Carolina been an independent country at the time Anderson moved his troops from one fort to another both of them were the property of the U.S. government. Why was moving an act of war?
Kalamata wrote: "...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter. Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,"
Once again we see that you will easily believe anything no matter how ridiculous if it fits your agenda. Stop and think for a change. Sumter is on an island in the middle of Charleston harbor. The wharves where the goods are landed are a miles away on the mainland. How does Fort Sumter collect tariffs when it is nowhere near where the goods are landed? And if Fort Sumter was the tariff collection point then what was the purpose of the Customs House on East Bay Street, right where the wharves were?
Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.
Why? Say for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal and the Confederacy became a sovereign nation. What difference would it have made for the U.S. what the Confederate tariffs were? What was the impact? And please don't post newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial. Facts please. Why do you think it mattered?
This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia's secession:
But that conversation was not recorded until April 1865. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be more than a touch of loser revisionism in Dabney's account of his conversation with Baldwin but it isn't like it was an extemporaneous account of the meeting.
The term would be accurate if it were renamed to "Lost Constitutioners".
I always find it amusing when Lost Causers accuse Lincoln of ignoring the Constitution and yet will bend themselves all out of shape to justify Davis' infractions.
Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.
Fair enough if true. Great Britain was by far the largest importer of raw cotton so any harm from reciprocal tariffs would have to be there. What was the tariff they placed on U.S. cotton imports? And what did the South import from overseas in large enough quantities that the tariff harmed them so much?
Yeah, everyone who doesn't kiss Lincoln's ring is a liar. I get it . . .
And everyone who questions your crap is a Lincoln apoligist and a liar, too. I get that as well.
That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.
How? What difference would it make if the Confederacy had a zero tariff and goods landed in Charleston? Once they passed to the U.S. they would pay the same tariff that they would pay if they went directly to New York would they not?
No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.
You say that as if abiding by their constitution was of interest to Davis and the Confederate congress.
Blockading ports is considered an act of war.
Not if they're your own ports.
>>Kalamata wrote: “The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Leaving aside for a moment your unfamiliarity of Confederate history,”
What did I write, “Montgomery”? LOL! So, sue me.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “even had South Carolina been an independent country at the time Anderson moved his troops from one fort to another both of them were the property of the U.S. government. Why was moving an act of war?”
South Carolina was an independent country under the Constitution in effect at that time. I admit, that is a hard concept for Lincolnites to grasp.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter. Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Once again we see that you will easily believe anything no matter how ridiculous if it fits your agenda. Stop and think for a change. Sumter is on an island in the middle of Charleston harbor. The wharves where the goods are landed are a miles away on the mainland. How does Fort Sumter collect tariffs when it is nowhere near where the goods are landed? And if Fort Sumter was the tariff collection point then what was the purpose of the Customs House on East Bay Street, right where the wharves were?
I don’t have an agenda; and whether Fort Sumter was a tax collection point, or not, is inconsequential to the narrative. But if that is all you have to support your agenda, by all means, use it.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Why?”
Because he said so? Of course, Lincoln was an accomplished liar, so perhaps he was lying at the time. But since I am not smart enough to tell when he was lying, I assume Lincoln was always telling the truth. Therefore, I submit that Lincoln was a constitution-hating, abolition-hating, white supremacist, white separatist, crony-capitalist, power-hungry thug.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Say for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal and the Confederacy became a sovereign nation.”
There is no argument. The Constitution is crystal clear that the general government was authorized no power over state sovereignty and secession. Show me where the general government was authorized that power, and I will admit I am wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “What difference would it have made for the U.S. what the Confederate tariffs were? What was the impact? And please don’t post newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial. Facts please. Why do you think it mattered?”
Free (or limited duty) trade in the Southern States would have destroyed the crony-capitalist system adopted by the Lincoln’s Whig party.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia’s secession:”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “But that conversation was not recorded until April 1865. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be more than a touch of loser revisionism in Dabney’s account of his conversation with Baldwin but it isn’t like it was an extemporaneous account of the meeting.”
That conversation was alluded to throughout Lincoln’s political career, and forcefully emphasized during his first inaugural address.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The term would be accurate if it were renamed to ‘Lost Constitutioners’.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “I always find it amusing when Lost Causers accuse Lincoln of ignoring the Constitution and yet will bend themselves all out of shape to justify Davis’ infractions.”
Why must you resort to straw men? Do you find it impossible to justify Lincoln’s tyranny, otherwise?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Fair enough if true. Great Britain was by far the largest importer of raw cotton so any harm from reciprocal tariffs would have to be there. What was the tariff they placed on U.S. cotton imports? And what did the South import from overseas in large enough quantities that the tariff harmed them so much?”
Those were the grievances. Look them up.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Yeah, everyone who doesn’t kiss Lincoln’s ring is a liar. I get it . . .
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “And everyone who questions your crap is a Lincoln apoligist and a liar, too. I get that as well.”
Only when they lie.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “How? What difference would it make if the Confederacy had a zero tariff and goods landed in Charleston? Once they passed to the U.S. they would pay the same tariff that they would pay if they went directly to New York would they not?”
No.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “You say that as if abiding by their constitution was of interest to Davis and the Confederate congress.”
Of course it was. The economic policies of the Confederate Constitution are the most economically sound polices ever comprised. Naturally the crony-capitalist Lincolnites would abhor them.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Blockading ports is considered an act of war.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Not if they’re your own ports.”
You mean, not if you are a Lincolnite, rather than a constitutionalist.
Mr. Kalamata