To be fair, if we'd kept our nose out of WW1, we wouldn't have had to deal with the real threat that occurred in WW2.
No such thing. They put forth this declaration that everyone who wanted to have independence could have it if they could get it.
This is both a logical error and a factual error. The document says that "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
See there? It's a right granted by God. As for your logical error, if you have the power to win, you don't have to iterate a right. You don't need "rights" because you have power.
The colonies fought long and hard for independence and won, with the help of the French.
Yes they did, because the United Kingdom did not recognize such a right. But guess what? THIS nation did. We said so in our declaration of independence. This is what you call a "paradigm shift." We fought for the right of people to be independent, and we recognize the right of people to be independent if they want. Or at least we did until Lincoln came along and launched a war while claiming secession is illegal.
He even had the gall to quote the Declaration as he celebrated a victory over people trying to obtain independence.
They attacked Fort Sumter.
In response to Lincoln's attack, which was launched first. Bet you didn't know about that.
The territories needed to clear land for planting
What were they going to plant in Colorado, in New Mexico, in Arizona, in Utah? Would it be worth having a $1,000.00 slave doing it? Very doubtful.
dig shafts for mining,
How many do you think that would have taken? It might have been dozens, and that's assuming other miners would not object to this, which would be doubtful.
It could have been good for tobacco, sugar cane, cotton, beets, who knows.
Anyone that looks at it. None of that stuff would grow in the territories except perhaps beets, and OMG! They could corner the *BEET* market!
The whole threat of slavery in the territories was just an astro turf fake concern meant to panic people into voting against the Southern states in their representation.
And this massive flow of new capital would have come from where?
I'm glad you asked me that. Most people don't want to look at the actual finances involved here. First, some things you probably didn't know.
Southern production amounted to 200 million dollars per year in export trade value to Europe in 1860. This constituted 73% of the total trade value for United States exports that year. *The laws of the United States had been rigged by the "Navigation act of 1817" and other laws such as the "Warehousing act" to funnel money into the pockets of New York, and through them, into Washington DC.
The end result is that about 60% of all money produced by Southern exports (which were fueled by slave labor) ended up in New York and Washington DC pockets, with only 40% left over to go to the people who actually ran the slavery.
By getting rid of the requirements of the Navigation act of 1817, and the high tariffs, the South would see a net gain of about 120 million dollars a year if everything else remained the same.
The effect would have actually been greater than this because the purchasing power would have increased simply because the duties on European goods would have been reduced. They could buy more for less.
This 120 million would have come out of New York and Washington DC's hide. They would have been the losers of this money.
And this is the smaller economic threat New York and Washington DC was facing. There was a much worse threat to them than just that European money heading south.
.
.
* This is what the territory fight was really about. The corrupt cartel of New York and Washington DC had managed to get 60% of the Southern production money flowing into their pockets, and if Southern states could get new allied states, they would be able to vote these unfair trade laws off the books, and recover a larger percentage of their production profits.
It wasn't possible to have any significant money making slavery in the territories, but if they would vote with the Southern block, the money would be made in the Southern states as a result of breaking Congress out of the control of the New York coalition.
NEW MEXICO The New Mexico Cotton Growers Association Conference provides an opportunity for cotton growers in New Mexico to update their knowledge on important production practices and to also learn about new technologies in cotton production coming out from the industry. New Mexico: Cotton Growers Conference, Ruidoso, Jan. 11 ... agfax.com/2016/12/01/new-mexico-cotton-growers-conference-ruidoso-jan-11/
Cotton growing has been a thing in the Southwest since prehistoric times.
This is both a logical error and a factual error. The document says that “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.
That was Jefferson’s error. Are you saying that those idiots in Chop/Chaz get to have their country just because they think they should? How about the Ahwazi in Iran? They’re oppressed, their oil fields are being appropriated by their oppressor to spread terrorism and death throughout the world, and do you seriesly think they can just march up to the Ayatollahs and say “we’re entitled to our own country because you’re big fat meanies”? Bad thing to say to an evil dictator. How about Hong Kong? They want indepenence no less than Jefferson or Jefferson Davis. But to gain independence, you have to go through a crucible in order to earn it. Nobody’s “entitled” just because Jefferson said they are.
See there? It’s a right granted by God.
It’s a right to win your independence. The only people who did not have to do that were the Children of Israel in Egypt, because G-d stepped in directly. And that was just one time. Against the Greeks and the British, we had to fight and it was a near thing.
As for your logical error, if you have the power to win, you don’t have to iterate a right. You don’t need “rights” because you have power.
And how many times have powerless, weak people won against a mighty nation. The South might have won, but did not. The Maccabees were weak but beat the mighty Greeks, and their descendants beat the British. The American colonies were weak, but they beat the British. India beat the British—not with weapons—but with Satyagraha, which nullified their adversary’s considerable power. The British sure got beat a lot. But they had power.
“The whole threat of slavery in the territories was just an astro turf fake concern meant to panic people into voting against the Southern states in their representation.”
That is from the point of view of the territories. To the South, it wasn’t a threat but a promise. Perhaps a fatuous one, but try telling Don Quixote that he’s fighting a windmill. It was their hope, and you’re caught up on whether that hope was realistic or not.
” By getting rid of the requirements of the Navigation act of 1817, and the high tariffs, the South would see a net gain of about 120 million dollars a year if everything else remained the same.”
But everything else did not remain the same. The British decided to buy their cotton from Egypt, to help them repay their debt for the Suez Canal project, and to keep out of a fight between those barbarous yanks. They sold the CSA some ramming boats and other hardware, and that was it.