Posted on 01/19/2014 5:51:53 AM PST by BigReb555
“Here I greet you in the shadow of the statue of your Commander, General Robert E. Lee. You and he left us memories which are part of the memories bequeathed to the entire nation by all the Americans who fought in the War Between the States.”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Um, sorry dear.
The only way, at the time, for the South to "to send all their cotton up to Yankee land" would have been by railroad. Shipping by railroad was much more expensive than by ship.
Almost all cotton was shipped from southern ports. Now the ships they went out on were usually owned and built by northerners or Europeans, but that was more a prduct of southern disdain for "commerce" than any government interference.
All the exports had to go out on American built ships.
Very unlikely. If you have evidence of this provision, feel free to post it. So far when I have asked you for actual evidence, you haven't provided any.
Anyway, even if the South had been prohibited from building ships, what would prevent rich southerners from buying ships from Europe or the North and going into the shipping trade to reap its vast profits for themselves?
Nothing at all. Except that raising cotton was more profitable and a great deal less difficult. As long as you could force others to grow it for you.
So far you have not provied anybody on this thread any evidence that you are old enough to be on here. Post your birth certificate or have your Mom call me and maybe we will let you back in the conversation. I guess you are out of school today for MLK day. :-)
I think these trolls that are on this thread are high school kids. They don’t sound like adults to me. They have very little knowledge about history or the reason for the cotton tariffs. Its probably just a hobby for them. Kids will be kids. :-)
Alas GG2 is proving herself a lost cause - in every sense of the term.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
From the Georgia Causes of Secession:
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.
The commercial and manufacturing businesses prospered greatly under the various tariff schemes. The tariffs propped up the prices of the domestic manufacturing base (located largely in the North), reduced foreign competition with those Northern goods, and by helping Northern businesses provided jobs for Northern workers.
I think it was much easier to sell secession to the average Southerner using slavery than using the tariff. Some economic analysis estimates the amount of wealth transferred from the South to the North via the tariff and the increased cost to the South for tariff-protected goods at 40 to 50 million dollars annually. That was about the cost of running the federal government for a year.
Here is a link to an old post that talks about the import of the tariff on Northern jobs:
Now lets look at the impact of the two tariffs (Morrill and Confederate) on Northern port cities. Here is another link:
A delegation of businessmen and bankers from the affected ports met with Lincoln to demand action. Lincoln ended up provoking war to stop the South from taking a lot of business from the North because of the difference between the high rates of the Morrill Tariff and the lower rates of the Confederate tariff (similar but a little lower than the 1857 US tariff). Remember Lincoln's "What will become of my revenue?" statement? The federal government had about quadrupled its debt in the three or so years right before the war. They needed money to run the government and service the debt. With the loss of Southern cotton which accounted for about 75% of the value of US exports, the North faced a severe balance of payments problem and thus inflation (which they did have).
Sometime I will provide you with all the various steps Lincoln took to provoke war, but right now I'm headed for bed. My surgery drain hole is gushing lymph fluid, and I need to repack the dressing and lie down.
Lincoln is still a hero to me, and, I agree with much of your assessment, yet still, I think secession has it’s place if the moral ground one is standing upon is solid.
This is where I disagree with the Southern “Cause”. They keep denying it, but slavery was the aggravating issue that brought about the war. Their reasons for secession are directly tied to not only keep slavery intact in the South, but expanding it across the country.
You’re right about Lincoln facing a terrible situation when he took office. Half the country had left the nation. Whatever he did would have a profound impact on us. I’m glad he was at the helm of leadership during that crisis.
I do agree that Lincoln saw secession as a fatal attack on the nation. I know he sincerely believed that it would lead to the destruction of the United States. In general, I agree with him. I’m just not sure that forcing the South back in militarily was the right move - but, I’m not wholly committed to that idea. Hindsight can see things so much more clearly than when one is facing the crisis at that moment.
A state or states could legally secede but it needs to be a mutually agreeable split among the states.
That gives pause to wonder what might have happened had the southern states not been so impetuous and hot-headed.
A point your post makes and many anti-southern bigots on this thread ignorantly ignore is that seceeded States had no representation in Congress. The Congress had already accepted their departure.
Yup. I’s always interested in discussing history, but how do you discuss history with someone whose “facts” are made up as she goes along, and who feels no need to show that they are facts when questioned?
Sure they did. Andrew Johnson, for example, continued to hold his Senate seat after TN seceded.
The southern states continued to have representation in Congress, they just didn't have any representatives, since with the exception of Johnson they'd all gone home.
What power did Congress have to force them to stay?
None. A State only has to ask permission to enter the union, not leave it. People seem to think a State becomes property of the federal government, of the union, when it joins. Hell, even Lincoln said a State has the right to leave.
Well an illegal secession, a war, a Supreme Court decision, and 105 years of precedent differ with you.
So if Congress was powerless to keep the Southern representatives from leaving Washington, how does that equate with accepting that their secession was legal?
You mean the US Supreme Court, the one that just declared the ObamaCare is legal, that the government can tax you for doing nothing and force you to buy something, the same court that also has declared your right to remain silent can be used against you, that your right to private property means nothing as the government can take it to sell it for any reason? THAT court? OK, gosh, you win. *snicker*
“105 years of precedent differ with you.”
Of liberal Yankee history rewriting, but not precedent.
You answered your own question. Think about it.
So you only obey the laws that you like? You sound paranoid and anarchistic. You should seek help for that.
Wow, you must be the only lost cause loser who doesn’t believe that “the winners write the history” LOL
Typed from under your rock in the Subway tunnels of NYC. :-)
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.