Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
Repetition is not an argument. It also does not clear muddied waters.
Well sure. Especially when they had used their numerical superiority to rig the laws to favor transferring money from Southern states into New York and Washington DC pockets. Take another look at this map.
See that pile of coins on New York and Boston? The bulk of that money came from the South.
*THAT* is what the war was about.
Took a look. How much of a cargo did those items represent? Also, we know that some ships landed cargoes in Southern ports, but how much a percentage of the total trade do those cargoes represent?
A pittance i'd wager.
It is the crux of the entire matter. If you are not arguing the right to secession, you are not honestly arguing about the civil war.
They had a right to leave, and nobody had a right to stop them from leaving. The Northern states even acknowledged this prior to the war. "Errant sisters, go in peace!"
Only to an imbecile...
You are mistaken. I have shown it many times. I will show it to you again.
How did 30% of the population buy 80% of the imports?
Well they didn't prior to secession. New York had rigged the game to get most of their money away from them. They would have done after secession because New York would not longer be able to keep the rigged game going short of invasion and conquest of the states that had seceded.
Oh, wait...
Absurdity adnauseam
Well if it was all on the up and up, why did they need the protectionist laws then? Don't they believe in capitalism and the free market?
I'll tell you the sort of capitalism the New York/Washington DC corruption swamp believes in, and that's "Crony Capitalism". Influence trading to get laws that favor your corporations. *THAT* is the sort of capitalism the New York Lords believe in.
Don't you see that happening today? Isn't New York and Washington DC fully corrupt today, right now?
The Southern production is established by the official records. Yes, the South did produce 72+ % of the total trade value with Europe in 1860.
I cite Thomas Prentice Kettell, but the official records reflect the same numbers. They have been posted in previous threads on this topic.
Post #902 offers a keen understanding into DgenerateLamp’s lunacy. To him “secession” means breaking any bond, rending any agreement, rescinding any treaty, at any time, and for any reason. No matter the consequence. No matter the damages. No matter the cost. And all without protest or recourse by those damaged by this betrayal.
Pretty slick deal, doncha think?!
Please read the following excerpt from the Founding document of this nation.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, 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.
Sounds like that means they have the right to break any bond, rend any agreement, and rescind any treaty at any time and for any reason.
Consent of the governed.
“The bulk of that money came from the South.”
How? Tariffs are in IMPORTS. There’s no way 1/3 of the population bought 3/4 of the goods.
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 you are not arguing the right to secession, you are not honestly arguing about the civil war.”
Not at all. I’m just not letting you muddy the waters.
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.
Why did Trump need his protectionist laws?
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.
Suppose for a moment, for the sake of argument, that any people anywhere have the right to secede. Any town can secede from the county, any county from the state, and so on. How would that right be affirmed? In a court of law? Or by rebellion and war?
Every president from George Washington stated clearly that they would oppose secession. So the Southerners knew war was coming, just as they knew that they’d force out union troops with violence. Johnny Reb rolled the dice, and he lost. Biggly.
One need look no further than the Free State of Jones for the answer to how any hint of secession would be greeted by the slavers.
Which he did. Congress met again in July.
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!
So what did Congress do in July that solved the trade problem you speak of?
Jeff Davis didn't send a fleet of warships with orders to attack. That was Lincoln, and *THAT* started the war.
Because Davis wanted the war to start.
We're talking 1860, not 2018. What is your evidence that Lincoln was 'cooking the books' in his 1864 message to Congress?
I think you are presenting editorial commentary as fact.
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.