Sure. Right now the government is printing and sending out so much phony money that our GDP is going up! up! up!
Pay no attention to that inflation man behind the curtain.
Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
“Foreign shipping had to sail empty and this put them at a serious economic disadvantage compared to Northern shipping.”
No, they did not. Read post 873 for multiple examples.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
People have a right to exercise their rights for "silly, flimsy, groundless and absurd" reasons. Other people have no right to put conditions on the exercise of a right by others. The States had just as much right to leave Washington DC as they did to leave England, and the British also though the Colonists reasons for leaving were "silly, flimsy, groundless and absurd."
(From the New York World
The men who have undertaken, by the vilest treachery that history records, to break up the most beneficial government ever forged, ...
Certainly beneficial to New Yorkers. And Washington DCers.
Again I ask, what kind of cherries do you prefer, maraschino or bing?
Repeating that doesn't persuade me either. What we see here is what we always see when a Liberal President orders everyone to fall in line or go to prison. The New York times and the Chicago Daily news even now have their tongue up the @$$ of Biden, as they always have had with Liberal big government Presidents who keep their cities enriched with government money.
Note the unanimous voices of all the typical liberal "news" outlets on the topic of Covid19, the fraudulent 2020 election and the "insurrection!" of January 6. They are Liars all.
To recap:
Argumentum ad nauseam.
I think they could have called a session any time they like. And what would it have hurt for them to wait till December? Why the urgency to start killing people? Oh, I know. The MONEY wouldn't wait till December. If Lincoln allowed regular trade to be established between Europe and the Confederate States, the gig was all up!
That would be a question for Jeff Davis.
Jeff Davis didn't send a fleet of warships with orders to attack. That was Lincoln, and *THAT* started the war.
And again, without a single shred of evidence to support you, you claim fake news.
Conservatives who have been paying attention for the last few decades are very much aware of how the government cooks the books. We don't need to see any more evidence on the topic because we have seen evidence of it year after year after year after year.
The odd question is why *YOU* need to see more evidence to demonstrate that the government cooks the books? To most conservatives, this statement is axiomatic and hardly in dispute.
Sure. Right now the government is printing and sending out so much phony money that our GDP is going up! up! up!
Pay no attention to that inflation man behind the curtain.
I’m not arguing the right to secession. Again, the question is what was the REASON that eleven states felt secession was JUSTIFIED. Little good can come from decisions based on “silly, flimsy, groundless and absurd” reasons. The American Revolution certainly wasn’t based on faulty logic.
As we continue to dispel the bogus reasoning of the Neo-Confederate Lost Cause mythology, the reason comes down to the only real threat to Southern wealth, the potential end of slavery.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
How many border agents were there patrolling that border?
When it comes to reporting that the locals intend to stop paying the tariffs if the Southern states are not going to be required to pay the tariffs, I would put that in the category of "news."
Fake news?
You think the Northern people were lying about it? You think it was all bluster, and they would have continued applying high taxes to all the ships that arrived while the Southern states were not?
I trust greed in people. They would have done whatever was necessary to secure their own financial interests, and if that is reducing their taxes to insure trade with them, they would have done it.
Because even if duties were reduced or removed, they still were not permitted to carry cargo between US ports. So long as they had to abide by that requirement, they were at a serious disadvantage compared to American ships.
You know this is true, else the Government would not have instituted this protectionist scheme.
Independence would have made European ships and crews equal economically to Northern ships and crews, which had an advantage at that time. This would have dramatically affected the Northern shipping industry and trade.
Same rotten people running the nation today.
Meh.
This map is simpler.
What does it prove? It proves that all that slave money was ending up in New York, Boston and Washington DC.
The people who launched a war to protect their money streams.
Washington DC was getting their cut. New York was collecting the money and then sending Washington it's cut of the take. Between the two of them, the total is 60%, but New York alone was approximately 40%. Numbers are only approximations I have found reading articles on the topic.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
You’ve yet to show how the bulk of these tariffs were paid by Southerners. How did 30% of the population buy 80% of the imports?
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
I would think they found other sources of revenue during this period, but I have not researched this topic. I've read messages from other people who have researched it, but I didn't consider it particularly important information at the time. My focus has always been on the right to independence, and the reasons why the Northern states invaded the Southern states.
Once the war was started, these sorts of economic details no longer mattered to me.
What do you think about them thwarting the will of the people with this tactic?
“The way New Yorkers were getting their foreign money is by taking 60% of the total value of production of Southern exports.”
What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean that if a Southern planter sold a shipment of cotton for $100, then the “New Yorkers” were selling it for $160? That sounds suspiciously like retail today. Except the retail price would be $200. The horror! Did not every business reap its just profits along the way, from the farm goods supplier, to the planter, to the factor, to the shipping company, to the broker, to the weaver, to the garment maker? Don’t you like capitalism?
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
If I run across it, i'll mention it, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking. Again, some form of the Jones act has always existed in this country.
The legislation at the links I have provided were pretty clear to me.
People tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't really want to see. The consequences of that bill are not necessarily so clear cut as you would have us believe. I've seen over and over where the "intent" of some bill is yada yada yada, and the consequences turn out quite different from what was expected.
“Once the war was started, these sorts of economic details no longer mattered to me.”
They matter to me, because they refute your inaccurate description of Southern economic production before the war.
To recap:
The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
What do people with money buy? Maybe they would be buying European made yachts which would have suddenly become much cheaper and more practical than before.
How would I know what they would buy from Europe. What I do know is they would have more money, and the Europeans would have to figure out what it is they wanted and then sell it to them.
Aren't you familiar with Capitalism?
Wishful thinking on your part I would think. Losing the south for four years during the rebellion and for several years afterwards did not appear to reduce the flow of imports, if tariff revenue for 1864 and later are any indication.
So what was the Northern folk suddenly selling a lot of to Europe? More lumber? More fish? More leather goods?
Also, the thinking that the money numbers can be compared pre war and post war is likely wrong. It's like Obama's numbers. The cost of everything went up dramatically, but his government reported inflation was very minor.
What they always did. Buy more slaves.
They were getting those out of Europe, were they? Clearly you are attempting to make some sort of feeble joke here, and for what purpose I cannot guess, because it doesn't impress me, and I doubt it impresses your friends.
If you are going to make a joke, make a good one.
You are trying to step around the fact that protectionism works. If there is no difference, why pass a protectionism act?
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.