I already did, Walt, and its been rebutted line for line. I also responded to another commentary on the same subject by Alan Nevins. Remember that one, Walt? You posted it a few days back. I rebutted it line for line as well. And to date, you have yet to even ACKNOWLEDGE either of those rebuttals much less address the fact that both exposed blatant lies by you and your sources.
Tariffs were not a compelling issue, just as Alexander Stephens suggested.
Stephens was wrong and, at the time of his argument, was pursuing a unionist position against the secessionist positions of Toombs and others. Toombs, in advocating secession, said very clearly that the tariff was an issue and discussed it at length. I already posted the excerpt from his speech for you and others to read.
It is also evident that Toombs was not alone in this position. In fact, it seems that Stephens' position was a minority. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia that I recently transcribed from the congressional records. To my knowledge, it is previously unpublished beyond those records back in 1861.
"Mr. President, it is very disagreeable to speak, as I do on this occasion, with a consciousness of my utter inability to prevent the passage of this bill. I have no doubt that the adoption of this measure is a forgone conclusion. I believe it has been generally understood that the adhesion of the State of Pennsylvania to the Republican party was upon the condition of the passage of this Morrill-tariff bill. Still, I owe it, perhaps, to those whose opinions I represented on this committee, and to my constituents, to expose, if I can, the shallow pretexts on which it is sought to adopt this measure, and strip itt of those disguises in the shape of specific duties, under which its enormous taxation is hidden." - Sen. Robert Hunter of Virginia (Congressional Globe, 36-2, page 899)
Hunter's speech in opposition to the Morrill bill thoroughly analyzes its statistical implications and covers seven pages of the congressional record - all of it devoted entirely to grievances with the tariff. The subject of most of these grievances is the false pretense under which the tariff is being pushed and its real effect of giving artificial advantages to northern industrialists at the expense of the non-industrialist population of the country (meaning the south). His conclusions on the Morrill bill were adamant and certain of its cause of many grievances with the south:
"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 to 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)
Well Walt. Passages like that from the congressional record sure do shine some light on your oft asserted yet never substantiated claim that the Morrill bill could never pass if the south opposed it! But its all right there straight from a leading Southern senator and tariff opponent who readily admits that the impassioned southern opposition to the tariff cannot stop what he saw as its inevitable passage. He voiced that opposition in the strongest of terms possible and at such a length as to make it one of the longest speeches of the entire session. Yet you come along and claim that none of it exists, that the tariff issue is not there, and that the south could have stopped the Morrill bill by barely even lifting a finger. In other words, you, your AOL newsgroup, Alan Nevins, Noam McPherson, and your entire crowd of marxist sympathizing historical revisionists have been lying all along.
You will tell any kind of lie.
No Walt. Unlike you, I prefer the truth. I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum. I have already shown your own indulgence in dishonesty and fraud above, Walt, as is directly evidenced in Senator Hunter's speech. He contradicts practically everything you've been saying about him and his side for untold years on this and other forums.
Though this reality is painfully obvious to any sane, coherent, and reasonably intelligent individual, I do not expect you to alter your fibs in any way nor even acknowledge the existence Hunter's speech, or Toombs' speech for that matter, or Wigfall's, or any of the other anti-tariff speeches from that great secessionist winter of 1861. You are in the business of fraud, not history, and a central part of that fraud entails shutting your senses off to anything and everything that contradicts your narrowly defined worldview of cultist Lincoln worship and sinful blasphemy before the false temple to his idolatrous name in the city of Washington.
Bump.
BUMP for TRUTH!!!
So you should be able reference Tariffs in the Statements of Secession from the various states, in which they list their reasons for seceding right? I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs? Otherwise, the tariff issue as a cause of secession becomes moot, and you would be well advised to stop raising it.
I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum.
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy. Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor as they applied to 19th century America, and then either change your name or switch sides.
So you should be able reference Tariffs in the Statements of Secession from the various states, in which they list their reasons for seceding right? I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs? Otherwise, the tariff issue as a cause of secession becomes moot, and you would be well advised to stop raising it.
I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum.
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy. Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor as they applied to 19th century America, and then either change your name or switch sides.