Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
Looks like it to me. When you highlight that over the rest of the document, it’s just propaganda. The dominant theme is that the North was taxing them excessively, destroying their domestic industries (like shipbuilding) through the power of law, and treating them as a second class citizens because they had insufficient representation to protect their own interests.
And what part of the United States was any of those places? Are you presuming to dictate to other countries their own domestic policies?
The vast majority of all slavery existed in Brazil. Why didn't they gather up their armies and ships and go destroy all that slavery there? It was 97% of the slavery in the world, yet nobody seems to care, because Brazil would not cost them money.
I believe I have already explained that to you. What northern industrialist is going to say "We have to stop the South to protect my fortune!" What Southern Politician is going to say "We want to leave the Union because it will enable us to transfer a huge amount of money currently going into Northern pockets into Southern pockets! "
People sold what they wanted to do as an idea they thought the public would support, not one they knew would provoke a backlash against them.
But if you think the money people weren't looking at the bottom line, you are crazy.
Several Northern newspapers saw what was going on and wrote about it in their editorials.
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)
"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860
"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861
It's a fact that when the provisional constitution was presented to the convention in Montgomery one of the first objections was to the name - Confederate States of America. Attendees thought it was too limiting.
The Confederacy was 'born' with the plan to expand to points south. All the better to spread slavery.
If I were you I'd either make it up as I went along or twist facts so badly to meet my agenda that one couldn't recognize them.
No, he was not. He looked way down his nose at Americans, thought they were crude, money hungry, and violent. He was pissed because international copyright didn't exist and American publishers were selling his work without royalties. He hardly even traveled in the South and the quotes attributed to him may not have even been his.
“ What northern industrialist is going to say “We have to stop the South to protect my fortune!” What Southern Politician is going to say “We want to leave the Union because it will enable us to transfer a huge amount of money currently going into Northern pockets into Southern pockets! “
People sold what they wanted to do as an idea they thought the public would support, not one they knew would provoke a backlash against them.”
Why wouldn’t Southern politicians promote putting more money into Southern pockets? Are you serious? Really? Johnny Reb was too dumb to understand? Make Dixie Great Again would have been a killer slogan!
I thought you said it was going to continue indefinitely?
The Star of the West WAS an unarmed merchant ship. The Queen Mary carried 15,000 troops during WWII, but that didn’t make it a warship. Johnny Reb fired first, and you can’t blame that Lincoln.
The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. WE WERE DIVIDED AND CONFUSED UNTIL OUR POCKETS WERE TOUCHED." New York Times March 30, 1861
Once they understood the money ramifications of Southern secession, they pulled a "Look Squirrel!" effort to get people to focus on another made up cause. They created the illusion that slavery was the problem, rather than the desire for New York, Boston and Washington DC to rule the Empire.
Oh, so never mind what Southern politicians said, it was other, secret motivations. Is that right?
“In practice almost no tariffs were collected; the total customs revenue collected was about $3.3 million (Confederate dollars), from 1861 through 1864. [Historical Statistics (2006) series Eh201]”
So yeah, if you don’t collect tariffs then yes importers save money. Hard to run a government with no revenue though. The CSA was always a clown show.
The editorial is sensationalist BS. You know that, right?
You didn't answer the question. If anything, you affirmed that none of those places were part of the United States.
And there was already massive slavery in the Caribbean.
If I were you, I would make this allegation without bothering to post facts of my own, and without calling any attention to the fact that this evidence have been posted by myself many times before.
You cannot get around it. The Southern states were producing the vast bulk of imports to the United States. The revenue to the FedGov was based on import taxes, and most of that money was coming out of their production, not that of the North.
But here is an interesting phenomena. You attack the man. You do not attack what he said, you attack the man personally.
Here is an excerpt from his chapter on slavery.
CHAPTER XVII SLAVERYThe upholders of slavery in America—of the atrocities of which system, I shall not write one word for which I have not had ample proof and warrant—may be divided into three great classes.
The first, are those more moderate and rational owners of human cattle, who have come into the possession of them as so many coins in their trading capital, but who admit the frightful nature of the Institution in the abstract, and perceive the dangers to society with which it is fraught: dangers which however distant they may be, or howsoever tardy in their coming on, are as certain to fall upon its guilty head, as is the Day of Judgment.
The second, consists of all those owners, breeders, users, buyers and sellers of slaves, who will, until the bloody chapter has a bloody end, own, breed, use, buy, and sell them at all hazards: who doggedly deny the horrors of the system in the teeth of such a mass of evidence as never was brought to bear on any other subject, and to which the experience of every day contributes its immense amount; who would at this or any other moment, gladly involve America in a war, civil or foreign, provided that it had for its sole end and object the assertion of their right to perpetuate slavery, and to whip and work and torture slaves, unquestioned by any human authority, and unassailed by any human power; who, when they speak of Freedom, mean the Freedom to oppress their kind, and to be savage, merciless, and cruel; and of whom every man on his own ground, in republican America, is a more exacting, and a sterner, and a less responsible despot than the Caliph Haroun Alraschid in his angry robe of scarlet.
The third, and not the least numerous or influential, is composed of all that delicate gentility which cannot bear a superior, and cannot brook an equal; of that class whose Republicanism means, ‘I will not tolerate a man above me: and of those below, none must approach too near;’ whose pride, in a land where voluntary servitude is shunned as a disgrace, must be ministered to by slaves; and whose inalienable rights can only have their growth in negro wrongs.
What do you suppose would have happened if they had pointed out how much money was going to suddenly stop flowing through Northern hands? As some of the articles I posted to you said, "WE WERE DIVIDED AND CONFUSED UNTIL OUR POCKETS WERE TOUCHED." New York Times March 30, 1861".
They did not do so because they were trying to sneak their way out, while not making it apparent that they were going to be making away with a lot of money that would normally go in Northern pockets.
Would you tell someone you are about to rob them, or would you take the money and abscond before they realized what had happened?
"Indefinitely" means of no determined interval. It does not mean forever.
The Corwin Amendment would have made it longer, because then 3/4ths of the states would be unable to vote to abolish it. With the Corwin Amendment passed, slavery would persist until the very last state decided to give it up voluntarily, and that would have certainly taken longer.
Even then, I don't think slavery would have persisted for more than another 80 years. I think the advent of mechanization would render slavery obsolete, and then the slave owners would be more susceptible to social pressure because the economic pressure encouraging to keep slavery would have waned.
But this is all academic, because the North did not invade the South to stamp out slavery.
And I bet you didn't know about it's troop carrying mission. I'm probably the first person to ever tell you about this covert operation.
Do you think "Global Warming" is actually about "Global Warming?" Do you think Covid19 is about Covid19? Do you think January 6 prosecutions are about protecting the capital city? Remember "Solyndra "? A funnel for government money into corrupt corporations connected to Democrats. Do you think the migrants at the border are about "human rights"? Do you think Hunter Biden is really on the board of directors (along with Nancy Pelosi's son) because he has expert knowledge about how to run a gas company?
All these things are about money and power, and the claims are just made to lull the stupid parts of the population into going along with it.
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.