Posted on 06/02/2009 4:45:48 AM PDT by Davy Buck
No one can deny the importance of slavery to the feud that split the United States, or that the CSA states made protection of slavery one of their central purposes. But the Southern confederacy -- that is, the national government of the CSA -- was no more built on slavery than was the Northern Union . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Uh, you're the one who has been saying that cotton was shipped in gunny sacks. I said that it was bales wrapped in burlap.
There is a HUGE discrepency in the numbers here. Yours in NYT, Wall street reporting, mine is NY State commerce. Someone is lying, because there is no way 60 million bushels shipped and less than 2 million left port from NYC.
And in Bushels 2 million is Jack-chit. I trust my numbers more than yours frankly.
Gunny Sack, IS Gunny Cloth, the material wrapping cotton bales. They are one in the same textile. UGH!
If tariffs were such a bone of contention then why didn't states rebel when it was raised, as it was in the 1830's and 40's?
Why don’t you try reading the Tariff accounting in the links I gave you which shows you more than your myopic source, like several years previous. The time that secession was building.
In the several years prior to the rebellion the tariffs were at their lowest levels in years. How could low tariffs be a reason for their secession?
A gunny sack is not the same as gunny cloth anymore than a cotton shirt is the same as a roll of cotton cloth. Here's what you said: "ALL cotton shipped north or exported was shipped in gunny cloth sacks."
The source I quoted showed for the years 1842, 1846, and 1857, the Tariff on Gunny, we have been debating went from 5 to 20 to 15.
“Lowest level in years” is not relative to the long term disgruntledness over protetive tariffs. 2 or 3 years does not make up for the screwing of decades.
You are ignorant and clinging on to silly misquotes. I’m tired of arguing semantics and idiodic points with you. You an the other Non-squirter or whatever merely badger and refuse to have any discussion other than SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES. You can both go masturbate to that mantra for all I care.
Fact stands, gunny cloth is my quote, I mistakenly included sack. Now unless you have anything substantial to argue.....
Okay, your numbers then. Total value of grain exports, including wheat flour: 23 million dollars. Federal budget in 1860: $60 million.
Your numbers also show that cotton and rice exports (which are about all the south exported) combined to form about half of the total US exports in dollar value. Which means, of course, that the other states exported just about the same amount.
Okay, here’s substantial: How come the Declarations of Causes that some of the southern states issued talk overwhelmingly about slavery and hardly mention the tariff? How come the appeals to other states to join the confederacy are addressed to “The Slaveholding States”? How come I can find dozens of southern leaders in 1860-61 saying that it’s all about “SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES” and can’t find one talking about tariffs, much less the cost of burlap.
Georgia Declaration of Causes
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
I shouldn't have to , but I'll point out that the causes listed here, are 100% tied to protective tariffs and laws favoring northern business interests over the south's.
More to come.....
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
Tariffs and underhanded legislation.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security. It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
Tariffs and underhanded legislation.
| And what's the first cause Georgia mentions?
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.
In his speech to the Virginia secession convention, Georgian Henry Benning was more direct:
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken."
Here are 3 in the post above you. More than one.
Again, first reason Texas mentions for seceding:
"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
And what did John McQueen of South Carolina give as that state's reason for seceding when he addressed the Texas secession convention? Slavery:
"But I trust I may not be intrusive if I refer for a moment to the circumstances which prompted South Carolina in the act of her own immediate secession, in which some have charged a want of courtesy and respect for her Southern sister States. She had not been disturbed by discord or conflict in the recent canvass for president or vice-president of the United States. She had waited for the result in the calm apprehension that the Black Republican party would succeed. She had, within a year, invited her sister Southern States to a conference with her on our mutual impending danger. Her legislature was called in extra session to cast her vote for president and vice-president, through electors, of the United States and before they adjourned the telegraphic wires conveyed the intelligence that Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to equality with ourselves and our children, and coupled with all this was the act that, from our friends in our sister Southern States, we were urged in the most earnest terms to secede at once, and prepared as we were, with not a dissenting voice in the State, South Carolina struck the blow and we are now satisfied that none have struck too soon, for when we are now threatened with the sword and the bayonet by a Democratic administration for the exercise of this high and inalienable right, what might we meet under the dominion of such a party and such a president as Lincoln and his minions."
Yet again, the first reason Mississippi gives for her actions? Slavery:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Fulton Anderson of Mississippi gave this reason for his state's actions in his address to the Virginia secession convention:
"I propose, gentlemen, in discharge of my mission to you, briefly to invite your attention to a review of the events which have transpired in Mississippi since the fatal day when that sectional Northern party triumphed over the Constitution and the Union at the recent election, and afterwards to the causes which have induced the action of my State.
On the 29th of November last, the Legislature of Mississippi, by an unanimous vote, called a Convention of her people, to take into consideration the existing relations between the Federal Government and herself, and to take such measures for the vindication of her sovereignty and the protection of her institutions as should appear to be demanded. At the same time, a preamble, setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question, and a resolution, declaring that the secession of each aggrieved State, was the proper remedy, was adopted by a vote almost amounting to unanimity. The last clause of the preamble and the resolution, are as follows:
"Whereas, they (the people of the non-slaveholding States) have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President, on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy, in reference to their respective systems of labor, and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, have thus declared to the civilized world that the powers of the government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy. Therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, That in the opinion of those who constitute said Legislature, the secession of each aggrieved State is the proper remedy for these injuries."
I never denied slavery was A cause. I was challenged that Tariffs were not mentioned in the Declarations of Causes.
I posted three proofs that they were. You, unfortunately, are what a gentleman General refers to as Stuck-on-Stupid.
But I know you’ll keep beating off to slavery until I relent that slavery was the ONLY cause. You are going blind.
Did any State's Ordinance of Secession mention a single cause other than slavery?
You will note, Bubba, that when confronted with evidence contradicting their rebel myths the Lost Cause brigade will, in true Southron fashion, resort to name calling and attempted insult. I expect no less from them, and to date have seldom been disappointed.
Unfortunate timing on your part, I just made 3 posts above you here, that showed Tariffs and Unfair legislation as causes OTHER than slavery.
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.