Posted on 11/21/2006 5:23:06 AM PST by SJackson
Every post you make is more clueless than the last.
"The South and North went to war over tariffs." Yet, the Slaver leaders didn't mention it. Yeah, oh yeah.
"Do you seriously, SERIOUSLY, believe that there was no way for this country to peacefully emancipate slaves as the European powers had done years before?" Ummm, and why don't you let us know about those countries which had MILLIONS of slaves? Slavers LOVED slavery they were in NO mood to end it by ANY means.
Who has claimed Lincoln was an Abolitionist other than the slavers themselves?
"The EP also caused a desertion crisis in the Union army to the tune of AT LEAST 200,000 and another 90,000 who fled to Canada to avoid conscription period!" Where do you get this crap? Crackpot.com?
Somebody brought up Laffer theory. Looks like the current trend of reconsidering the Civil War is catching on at the universities:
The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship
Robert A. McGuire and T. Norman Van Cott
McGuire: Professor, Department of Economics, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325. E-mail rmcguire@uakron.edu
Van Cott: Professor, Department of Economics, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail tvancott@bsu.edu
Abstract
This article offers an example of a national constitution, that of the Confederate States of America, which effectively constrained its fiscal authorities to tax rates on the lower end of the Laffer relationship. The taxes were Confederate import tariffs. Drawing on primary sources, the paper documents the role that this de facto capping of tariff rates played in the history of the drafting of the Confederate Constitution. That the Laffer relationship found constitutional expression for an important tax suggests that the "tariff" might have played a more significant role in the North–South conflict than is currently acknowledged.
http://ei.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/428
So far, so good. Now, what if Castro changed his mind? What if he decided tomorrow that he wanted the base that stands on soil leased, not owned, by the US government, and to that end imposed a blockade against supplies reaching it. If the US sent supplies anyway, would the Cubans be right in shelling the base?
Bubba, to make a proper analogy to the Civil War Ft Sumter incident we have to change the circumstances do what I've already told you:
1) No agreement to lease the base would exist in the first place.
2) I would be sending a humanitarian ship, not battleships and troops
3) My top general, the top brass, and most of my cabinet would not be telling me to abandon it.
4) I would not have promised to invade it in my inaugural address.
Oh, and the Confederates weren't "starving" Union troops. They asked them to evacuate the fort. We're going in circles here.
To All,
Also, isn't a bit sophomoric to endlessly rant over who fired the first shot and who hit who first? For those for Lincoln's take on things, the entire Confederacy was illegal in the first place! What difference does it make to anyone who fired first if the war was on?
Frankly, I think it shows resolve that the South fired first. They should've fired a whole lot sooner (when Anderson, the Union commander holding out in Sumter, had rifles smuggled in).
What's the point about bellyaching "Well, they hit first. Whaaaahhahaha!!"???
After the South seceded and the North didn't recognize the Confederacy, it was TIME TO GET IT ON.
Yeah, that lasted all of three months. In May 1861 the confederate congress passed a tariff legislation that placed a 25% tariff on tobacco and tobacco products. Tobacco, as you may remember, was an important crop in Virginia and North Carolina. It placed a 20% duty on sugar, coincidentally raised in Louisiana. It placed a 20% duty on molasses, produced in several of the deep south states. It placed a 2 cent tariff on each bushel of salt, another southern product. Apparently tariffs weren't all that bad after all, and protectionism not that evil when it protected southern producers.
But then again history has shown that the confederacy paid lip service to the constitution time and again, ignoring it when convenient.
In fact, Castro has a stronger claim than South Carolina. The US government owned Sumter outright. South Carolina had given them the deed.
2) I would be sending a humanitarian ship, not battleships and troops
So you would try to supply the fort, while you decry Lincoln for doing the same. Your only difference is what kind of ship you'd send.
4) I would not have promised to invade it in my inaugural address.
Lincoln made no such promise. In fact, he promised the opposite, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
I've shown time and time again that the Confederacy did not outlaw tariffs but rather outlawed using them for pork projects. The South had half the population of the North and not near the resources. How did you think they were going to raise an army? Magic?
Even so, one of my previous posts linked out to an article at Oxford's website by two scholars who claim the Confederate general tariff rate was on the low end of the Laffer specturm, unlike the Union one. We're talking 20% vs over 40% and this in a country that has to war with another nation that has twice the population and many more resources.
Speaking of money...
TRIVIA MOMENT:
The Confederate States of America had a $500 bill. None other than Stonewall Jackson was on it! One just sold on ebay for about $276. That's nothing IMHO. I'm going to get one in the future.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Confederate-500-note-Stonewall-Jackson_W0QQitemZ170050268775QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3414QQcmdZViewItem
Hey Bubba, the war was on, who gives a rats bunghole who fired the first shots, ok?
Unlike you, I have done more than mere basic research. In his book "Stonewall: A Biography of General Thomas J. Jackson", Byron Farwell addresses the story:
"The dramatic scene and the shouted remarks to President Davis are suspect. McGuire was generally a reliable witness, and certainly it was he who dressed Jackson's wound, but the story did not appear in print until more than 20 years after the war."
Farwell goes on to note, "The next day, when Jackson wrote to Anna, he made no mention of the encounter with President Davis." Jackson, as Farwell also notes, shared everything with his wife and was not above name dropping. It seems highly unlikely that he would have failed to mention meeting the president. Add to that the fact that Jackson biographers like G.F.R. Henderson and Lenoir Chambers place so little credence in the story that they don't include it in their books and your story almost certainly falls into the category of a southron myth.
Under the Union draft act men faced the possibility of conscription in July 1863 and in Mar., July, and Dec. 1864. Draft riots ensued, notably in New York in 1863. Of the 249,259 18-to-35-year-old men whose names were drawn, only about 6% served, the rest paying commutation or hiring a substitute.
That's your definition of AWOL? You need to look up the meaning of the word. It is true that as little as 6% of the Union army was conscripted. But the Union still had no problems finding enough volunteers to maintain their armies through the entire war. Contrast that to the confederacy. In April 1862 all enlistments were extended for the duration of the war, a trampling of states-rights that Lincoln never contemplated. The south also implemented conscription that same month and by the end of the war almost a third of the rebel army was drafted. So you may say that 94% were AWOL when in fact 94% of all Union soldiers were volunteers. On the other hand, by the end of the war virtually all confederate soldiers were there because they were forced to be.
No, because the first resort to violence put the south squarely in the wrong and turned what had been a political crisis into a war. Toombs, if no one else in the CSA government, recognized this fact.
Oh, by the way, for all your talk about "battleships", the south had fired on the unarmed civilian ship "Star of the West" that Buchanan had attempted to use to resupply Sumter in January, and no Union ship had entered Charleston harbor when Beauregard began shelling the fort.
No, you said in Reply 714 that they outlawed protectionist tariffs. And I quote, "This is why the Confederate States OUTLAWED protectionist tariffs in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution." And as I've shown that it took the Davis regime not 3 months to totally ignore that clause of the Constitution and enact a tariff that was protectionist in nature.
Now, is there anything else you want to deny posting?
Even so, one of my previous posts linked out to an article at Oxford's website by two scholars who claim the Confederate general tariff rate was on the low end of the Laffer specturm, unlike the Union one.
Did they deny it was protectionist or hadn't they read it either?
But none of those conscripted confederate soldiers owned more than 20 slaves. To the end, Slavery Inc. had to honor the central role of whipping slaves and keeping the property in line. Intelligent southerners foretold that the effect of Confederate rule would be to put the mass of poor southerners into bondage to the economic and societal interests of the slave owning class, the nonproductive drone class that the Rockwell/DiLorenzo/Cindy Sheehan crowd confuses with "the South".
Dude, you are a psycho case. Please, don't waste your time or junk up the board by posting to me any more.
What would you do Mr. Carter?
Fort Sumter itself was a Pork Project that was obsolete even before construction began at the insistence of the Grand Daddy of all the secessionists --- John C. Calhoon during the aftermath of the War of 1812. The place was "under construction" for over 30 years and pumped millions over the years into the Charleston economy.
free dixie,sw
at least on the day before, there were deliveries of food, clothing,chocolate, lace,fresh bread/pastries & other items to the post.
there are reports that deliveries continued on THE DAY of the bombardment. (obviously NOT during the relatively brief shelling!)
at least ONE "privately owned sidearm" was repaired & returned to a union officer by a local gunsmith, the week before the shelling.
free dixie,sw
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.