Replies

FLT-bird: "the fact that the federal government got most of its money through tariffs which were paid overwhelmingly by the Southern states."

That is a flat-out lie, yes, believed and expressed by some Southerners before 1861, but it's laughably untrue.
In fact, Southerners paid virtually no tariffs.
Arguments which claim they did are convoluted and full of logical errors.

FLT-bird: "the scale of federal expenditures for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects which were spent overwhelmingly in the Northern states."

Another flat-out lie, also often repeated by Southerners before 1861.
It is only remotely true if by "Northern states" you mean every state North of South Carolina.
In actual fact, Federal spending corresponded pretty well to populations and numbers of representatives from each region.

FLT-bird: "the longstanding and bitter complaints by Southerners about this exploitation at the hands of the federal government for the benefit of the Northern states"

Those are just more lies.
In fact, Southerners were never out of power before secession in 1861.
After the 1800 election, Southern Democratics controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency almost continuously until 1861.
Even in those brief periods when Whigs won control, it was still Southern Whigs who called the shots -- Whig Presidents Harrison, Tyler and Taylor were all slaveholders.
The most influential Whig in Congress, Henry Clay, was a Southern slaveholder.

Some Southerners did complain bitterly about the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", but it only passed due to the strong support of other Southerners like Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and even, originally, the Vice President, SC's John C. Calhoun.
Indeed, a majority of New Englanders also voted against the 1828 Tariff, meaning, it was not an issue of "North vs. South".

So, in reality, Southerners were never out of power in Washington before secession in 1861.
What Southerners didn't like, they could prevent.

FLT-bird: "the fact that the North was perfectly willing to protect slavery - effectively forever - by express constitutional amendment if only the original 7 seceding states would return....which they refused."

No Republican in 1860 was willing to increase the US Constitution's implied protections for slavery.
Most Republicans even opposed the mildest Corwin Amendment.
But, as Lincoln said, Corwin did not increase protections for slavery, it only expressed directly what he understood the Constitution to already mean.
Nor was Corwin intended to win back Confederate slave states, but only to reassure Union Border Slave States that Washington would not pass laws against their slavery.

FLT-bird: "that slavery was ended just about nowhere else in the Western world (ie Europe and all their colonial possessions around the world) via a big bloody war.
It was ended at about the same time, for the same reason (industrialization) and the usual method of ending slavery was via compensated emancipation."

Even though our pro-Confederates delight in minimizing slavery's moral issues, the fact remains that all of our Founding Fathers, even the Southerners, recognized slavery as a moral wrong which should be gradually abolished.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson not only supported abolition in the Northwest Territories and in international imports of slaves, he also proposed nationally compensated emancipation.
That proposal went nowhere because it was opposed by Southerners.

FLT-bird: "The fact that I had gotten all the way through college as a history major and had never been taught this really opened my eyes to just how propagandized we are in America."

Since all of that is just pro-Confederate propaganda lies, it's not surprising you didn't learn it in school.

FLT-bird: "It was like watching the corporate media start attaching their tongues to Obama’s shorts in 2007 without even any pretense of balance, fairness, objectivity, etc and watching them just push the narrative of the day for the Democrat party on every single issue since then."

Southern Democrats lied just as much in, say, 1860 as Democrats do today.
Democrats have always been the party of lies and liars.

FLT-bird: "Does it really shock anybody to hear that the history faculty....ie part of Academia....is just as massively biased and just as prone to pushing narratives, outright lying, and hiding the truth as the corporate media?"

Because they are Democrats, and Democrats are all about trying to sell you their Big Lies.
That was just as true in 1860 as it is today.

FLT-bird: "Once you know you’re being lied to and start looking for the truth yourself, you start finding it. The key is waking up to the fact that you’re being lied to in the first place. Many still haven’t woken up to that."

Once you've been brainwashed (or brainwashed yourself) with Democrat lies, it can be nearly impossible to break their hold on your mind, as posters like FLT-bird and DiogenesLamp amply demonstrate.

That is a flat-out lie, yes, believed and expressed by some Southerners before 1861, but it's laughably untrue. In fact, Southerners paid virtually no tariffs. Arguments which claim they did are convoluted and full of logical errors.

Nope! The denial of it is a flat out lie. Everybody including even the Northern newspapers at the time admitted it was true. The lying denial is just laughable in fact.

Another flat-out lie, also often repeated by Southerners before 1861. It is only remotely true if by "Northern states" you mean every state North of South Carolina. In actual fact, Federal spending corresponded pretty well to populations and numbers of representatives from each region.

Another case of a flat out lying denial of the obvious truth. It was absolutely true that Northern States got the lion's share of federal expenditures despite paying only a tiny fraction of the taxes.

Those are just more lies. In fact, Southerners were never out of power before secession in 1861. After the 1800 election, Southern Democratics controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency almost continuously until 1861. Even in those brief periods when Whigs won control, it was still Southern Whigs who called the shots -- Whig Presidents Harrison, Tyler and Taylor were all slaveholders. The most influential Whig in Congress, Henry Clay, was a Southern slaveholder.

Nope! The denial of it is yet more lies. Southerners were a minority in Congress for years and years prior to Secession and the last few presidents - Buchanan and Lincoln - were Northerners.

Henry Clay was a Kentuckian who was a nationalist and who championed the "American plan" of high protective tariffs and lots of corporate welfare. This is what Lincoln believed in as well.

Some Southerners did complain bitterly about the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", but it only passed due to the strong support of other Southerners like Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and even, originally, the Vice President, SC's John C. Calhoun. Indeed, a majority of New Englanders also voted against the 1828 Tariff, meaning, it was not an issue of "North vs. South".

It wasn't a strictly North-South fight getting the Tariff of Abominations passed but once Southerners saw how damaging it was to their economy, they became staunchly opposed to the point that South Carolina nullified it touching off a national crisis.

So, in reality, Southerners were never out of power in Washington before secession in 1861. What Southerners didn't like, they could prevent.

in reality, Southerners became more and more of a minority in Washington DC and by 1860 it was clear to everybody that they no longer had the strength to prevent passage of the Morrill Tariff which eventually TRIPLED tariff rates. Southerners knew exactly how harmful this would be to them - and their response was secession.

No Republican in 1860 was willing to increase the US Constitution's implied protections for slavery. Most Republicans even opposed the mildest Corwin Amendment. But, as Lincoln said, Corwin did not increase protections for slavery, it only expressed directly what he understood the Constitution to already mean.

The Corwin Amendment would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever in the US Constitution. Lincoln and the Northern dominated Congress also offered strengthened fugitive slave laws.

Nor was Corwin intended to win back Confederate slave states, but only to reassure Union Border Slave States that Washington would not pass laws against their slavery.

That is false. It was definitely intended to persuade the original 7 seceding states to re-enter the union. Anybody who reads Lincoln's first Inaugural Address will see it right away.

Even though our pro-Confederates delight in minimizing slavery's moral issues, the fact remains that all of our Founding Fathers, even the Southerners, recognized slavery as a moral wrong which should be gradually abolished. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson not only supported abolition in the Northwest Territories and in international imports of slaves, he also proposed nationally compensated emancipation. That proposal went nowhere because it was opposed by Southerners.

Lots of people saw slavery and its effects as pernicious. Pretty much nobody was willing to shed their blood for its abolition. Nor were the 94.33% of Southerners who did not own so much as a single slave willing to shed their blood for its preservation. Slavey is not what people on each side were fighting over.

Since all of that is just pro-Confederate propaganda lies, it's not surprising you didn't learn it in school.

Since the denial of it is the standard pro federal government propaganda and lies, it shows just how deep the propaganda goes that I was not exposed to the truth even all the way through college.

Southern Democrats lied just as much in, say, 1860 as Democrats do today. Democrats have always been the party of lies and liars.

Republicans lied every bit as much back then as Establishment Republicans aka RINOs lie today. They are after all, part of the Establishment. As we've all seen on issue after issue, there is simply no lie they will not stoop to in order to keep themselves in power and to keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

Because they are Democrats, and Democrats are all about trying to sell you their Big Lies. That was just as true in 1860 as it is today.

They are the Establishment and the Establishment has always been all about trying to sell you on their Big Lies. Its not limited to just one party. RINOs are part of the Establishment and are fully in on it - just like they were part of the steal last time around.

Once you've been brainwashed (or brainwashed yourself) with Democrat lies, it can be nearly impossible to break their hold on your mind, as posters like FLT-bird and DiogenesLamp amply demonstrate.

Once you swallow the Establishment's likes like BroJoeK, it is nearly impossible to get through to you just as it is with him.

Infrastructure projects like dredging harbors and rivers and mapping channels in waterways benefited the South more than the North. That may also have been true of fort construction, given that the South’s coastline was longer than the North’s.

Also, some of what Southern secessionists saw as special benefits to the North may have been designed to throw something to Easterners while the country was conquering, clearing, surveying, and populating vast tracts in the West. We were fighting wars that benefited land-hungry Westerners, and something was needed to keep Easterners onboard with that.

Also, tariffs protected industrialists in Virginia and other Southern states, as well as in Northern states, and helped to develop the industries that the Confederacy would later rely on. Additionally, tariffs benefited hemp growers in Kentucky and Tennessee and sugar planters in Louisiana. It was the cotton planters who complained, and given the controversy over slavery, their complaints gained support from other Southerners when Lincoln was elected.