Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
I have Chickasaw and Cherokee and Choctaw and Creek and Cheraw Indian ancestors, myself. We share two tribes, we may be kin!
Cause the word tariff may be interchanged with other synonymous and related terminology.
A common one that appears in the Georgia resolution is to "protect" or the act of "protection" of industries. This means to enact a tariff that protects a home industry from foreign competition by inhibiting trade.
Accordingly when the Georgia resolution says "After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent," it is referring to the level of price raised by the protectionist tariff. Other terms to look for are "duties" and "free trade."
Senator Wigfall thought as much and went to great lengths to warn the north against this. They did not listen though.
Shoot at guys from Maine or Michigan over slavery? OR tariffs?
If they're running at you through the middle of your front yard with bayonets pointed at your person, the YES! I'd shoot back in self defense regardless of where they're from, as would any sane and armed individual.
In all the movement towards re-union, there was no mention of adjustments of the tariff as a reason for which the south would agree to acknowledge the primacy of the federal government.
Thats because those movements of "re-union" were conducted by one side holding a gun to the other side's head. Persons held to negotiation at gunpoint typically do not get much say in the terms of those negotiations.
For the record though, I do notice that you've significantly modified your argument. A few days ago you were towing the line that in all the secession period, none of the southerners cited the tariff issue. You were shown to be wrong with thoroughly documented historical evidence otherwise. Apparently that evidence finally made it through your thick skull and you dropped that previous line. But rather than admit your error, apologize for lying, and sincerely hope that those of us you attempted to decieve will extend our forgiveness, you pull another lump of dung out of the manure pile and begin trotting it around as if it were not as putrid as the previous. You may think you are getting somewhere by waving it, Walt, but in reality we both know it stinks. We both know your previous argument failed you. And we both know that this latest little charade of yours does not even mount a case for what you hope to prove due to the obvious reason that confederates were held at gunpoint, figuratively and literally, during the events you speak of.
A few days ago, Wlat posted this remark about the tariff issue:
"Similarly, the speeches of Secessionist leaders made in late 1860 and early 1861 show almost total concentration on slavery issues, with little or no substantive discussion of current tariff issues." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/828373/posts?page=465#465
Over the several days that followed between then and now, I bombarded him with the texts of speeches saying exactly what he denied to exist. Last night I provided a particularly interesting excerpt of a speech from Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia made before the senate in early 1861. It took up seven pages in the congressional globe and was devoted ENTIRELY to denouncing the Morrill tariff. Well, sure enough Wlat's story has changed on the tariff issue!
No longer is he spouting the fraud that southerners spoke nothing of it during secession. He's dropped that line and carefully shifted to a knew one, hoping nobody would notice (and in case Walt is reading this - you were noticed).
It gets better though. Check out his new line of argument. No longer is it "the tariff wasn't discussed as a cause for secession, and therefore was not a cause" The new line is "the tariff wasn't discussed during negotiations for reentry into the union, and therefore was not a cause." he apparently thinks it was as if the south was in a position to set terms for everything it wanted in 1865!!!
Needless to say, all southerners here should take joy tonight, cause this is the closest you will ever see Walt get to admitting he was wrong.
Sir:-A collision between the citizens and the Northern troops has taken place in Baltimore, and the excitement is fearful. Send no troops here. We will endeavor to prevent all bloodshed. A public meeting of citizens has been called, and the troops of the State have been called out to preserve the peace. They will be enough.
This communication makes it sound as if the federal troops coming into Baltimore were not in transit to Washington to defend the capitol, but being sent to keep the peace in Maryland. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather than helping preserve the Union, the treasonous government of Maryland was actively working against it.
Merryman and the Governor should have been shot for treason. That would have made habeus corpus an easy proposition.
Hold it there son. You've stated time and time again, it could never have been over tariffs. But when my honorable friend GOP posts factual evidence you change to this?
In all the movement towards re-union, there was no mention of adjustments of the tariff as a reason for which the south would agree to acknowledge the primacy of the federal government
Well what happened to the four years in between? Better yet, what happened to the all fired argument of the cause of the war in the first place? You better not let your AOL buddies see this, you'll be kicked right out (BTW, I've seen some of those posts over there. To call yourself conservative is nothing but a sham)
Surely you couldn't be referencing this little gem of information over there from the poster known here as "WhiskeyPapa" and percieved here by SOME to be a conservative...
"If you non-U.S. citizens are wondering what the electoral college is and what bunch of ninnies thought it up: The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others. They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves. They didn't trust the common man --at all--, hence the college of electors, who didn't (and don't) necessarily have to vote for the candidate that carries their state. Here in Georgia, I didn't vote for Al Gore. I voted for nine Democratic Party hacks that promise to vote for Al when the college meets in December. Yeah, I know its crazy, but it works. Abraham LIncoln won the 1860 election with a clear victory in the Electoral College but only @ 40% of the popular vote." - Walt, explaining the electoral college to foreigners, AOL Newsgroup
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.
In contrast the second sentence of the statement says For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
It doesn't even sound like tariffs were a current problem, only that the Republican party had attracted to its side some scattered advocates of a failed protectionist policy. (like Pat Buchanan republicans)
Slavery and the election of Lincoln were the real cause for southern secession, not the abuse of tariffs. And primary sources bear this out.
My, my, again. Take a few deep breaths before reading further.
My take of it is that whether Federal troops were coming to help quell the riots or passing through Baltimore, in either case there would have been more riots. At least that apparently is what the mayor and governor feared. They thought they were sitting on a powder keg. Earlier they had worked to keep the pending arrival of the Massachusetts troops a secret from the populace knowing there would be problems, but it didn't work -- the townspeople found out and a riot ensued. In the minds of the mayor and governor, blocking further access of the troops to the city saved people's lives on both sides.
Also, you might be interested in the following site: Maryland History. According to this site, the mayor threatened the citizens with gun in hand during one of the confrontations with troops and peace resumed for a while. The mayor then met with Lincoln and Lincoln agreed that Northern troops would not pass through Baltimore. Routes were found around Baltimore.
Feel better?
The congressional record indicates otherwise in very clear terms. The following is an excerpt from a speech against the tariff by Virginia Senator Robert Hunter during the secession period. The speech, which took up seven pages of the record, focused entirely on the Morrill tariff and the south's grievances against it.
"But pass this bill, and you send a blight over that land [Virginia]; the tide of emigration will commence - I fear to flow outward - once more, and we shall begin to decline and retrograde instead of advancing, as I had fondly hoped we should do. And what I say of my own State I may justly say of the other southern States. But, sir, I do not press that view of the subject. I know that here [in Congress] we are too weak to resist or to defend ourselves; those who sympathize with our wrongs are too weak to help us; those who are strong enough to help us do not sympathize with our wrongs, or whatever we may suffer under it. No, sir this bill will pass. And let it pass into the statute-book; let it pass into history, that we may know how it is that the South has been dealt with when New England and Pennsylvania held the power to deal with her interests." - Senator Hunter (page 905)
Slavery and other issues, though they appeared elsewhere during the secession debates, were absent from the speech and many others on the tariff issue.
Well what happened to the four years in between?
There were no four years in between. Lincoln throughout 1862 tried to interest -anyone- in compensated emancipation and colonization. No one was buying that.
The point is that he didn't seek a change in the tariff to placate the rebel states. It was all slavery, slavery, slavery.
Here is the famous Greeley letter of August 1862 so often partially quoted by the neo-reb fringe crazies. What do you see about tariffs here:
"Hon. Horace Greeley:
"Dear Sir,
"I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in doubt.
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the neared the Union will be "the Union as it was". If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln"
No one was talking tariffs. Tariffs as the cause of the war are an excuse, a rationalization to avoid the nasty truth that all these southern heroes were fighting so they could get their bread from the sweat of other men's faces.
Walt
It's true that the rebel states had few military successes -- despite the myth. It's true that the rebels had no significant success at all west of the mountains throughout the whole war. It's true that Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it. It's true that President Lincoln wrote out on a single piece of paper right after First Bull Run the concepts that did bring the war to a successful conclusion.
But it wasn't as bad as you suggest.
Walt
It ain't rocket science.
If tariffs were an issue before the war, they would figure in to the negotiations to end the war. Show that in the record.
Walt
No, I said and say that the volume of noise on the tariff was drowned out by the volume on slavery.
I said and say that there would have been no war except for slavery.
I said and say that your interpretation of these events is less credible than that of the VP of the so-called CSA.
Walt
The Price in Blood! Casualties in the Civil War
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000
The Price in Blood! Casualties in the Civil War
Whatshisname seemed to be suggesting that the rebels had no say in the outcome of the war.
Would you agree with that? Were they just victims?
Walt
The only myth is the one you are spouting, Walt. It took your side four long bloody years to achieve what is today but a 2.5 hour drive by car. They lost some 350,000 men doing it. They suffered embarrassing defeats over and over and over again at First Manassas, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville among others.
It's true that the rebels had no significant success at all west of the mountains throughout the whole war.
Mansfield, Chickamauga, and Sabine Pass say otherwise.
It's true that Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it.
And it is also true that almost every engagement Lee participated in was inside of Virginia.
But it wasn't as bad as you suggest.
Oh, I think it was. I distinctly recall the yankees setting term after term for readmission and, both until those terms were met and after they were met, installing illegitimate militarist regimes in the state governments of the south. It was called reconstruction, Walt. It lasted until 1877.
All this talk of reentry on your part gives reason to question exactly what of anything it is, Walt. Rocket chasing rather than rocket science seems to be a better explanation seeing as your diminished mental capacity seems not to extend to the former, but considering the wild fluctuations and changing standards of your arguments, one is hard pressed to pinpoint much of anything with your terms.
If tariffs were an issue before the war, they would figure in to the negotiations to end the war.
And that, Walt, is a non-sequitur. No necessary connection exists as to why the south would negotiate over the tariff at the end of the war and in fact a reason does exist that specifically impeded them from doing so on the tariff or much of anything else. That reason is the nature of those "negotiations" - the south was defeated and held at gunpoint. It had to endure whatever terms the yankees gave it, and of course the yankees would never give up their precious tariff.
Show that in the record.
First you show it in the record that the south got to negotiate for itself much of anything of consequence at the end of the war.
Would you agree with that? Were they just victims?"
No comment on the first part.
Victims,,,yes. Considering that all they wanted was the type of Constitutional Government left by their ancestors taken away by the powers of the North.
All I posted that for was to show, that although the CSA didn't win the war, the North and the South paid a big price. The South was then dragged back into the Union by the hair of her head,, at gun point.
No Walt. Here is what you said a few days ago:
"Similarly, the speeches of Secessionist leaders made in late 1860 and early 1861 show almost total concentration on slavery issues, with little or no substantive discussion of current tariff issues." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/828373/posts?page=465#465
See that? "Little or no substantive discussion" are the terms you posted. You did not say "the tariff speeches were drowned out by slavery." You did not say "there was less said about the tariff." You said there was "little or no substantive discussion " of the tariff at all. You said that and in doing so you lied. Your lie was exposed by Senator Hunter's speech. A seven page oration in the congressional globe devoted entirely to tariffs constitutes substantive discussion of it. It also constitutes a speech that is comparable if not longer than any given on slavery in that entire session. And it also shows that one of the longest speeches of the session continued without being "drowned out" once by a reference to the slavery question.
I said and say that there would have been no war except for slavery.
And I say such speculation is nonsense as you cannot alter history to test that hypothesis. I also say that South Carolina was ready to leave the union before on the grounds of a tariff alone and that no reason exists why they would not have done it again.
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.