See that pile of money on New York? Almost *ALL* of that money came from Southern exports. If you don't think the money powers in New York and the Government powers in Washington DC would want a war fought over that money, you are a fool.
Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
I do understand your reluctance, and note where DiogenesLamp attempted to answer the question, but his was a total dodge, full of false data & unsound reasoning.
So I'm guessing, if DiogenesLamp can't give us a straight-forward answer (i.e., "yes" or "no"), you won't either.
But I don't wish to discourage you tooooooo much, so give it your best shot, please.
There is nothing wrong with you taunting your idea opponents.
But you should never announce your rhetorical question is “impossible” to answer - it gives away your game.
And - if you actually expect an answer to your rhetorical question, don't say to your opponent to think “long and hard.” They may think long and hard; or ignore you.
See that pile of money on New York? Almost *ALL* of that money came from Southern exports. If you don't think the money powers in New York and the Government powers in Washington DC would want a war fought over that money, you are a fool.
So to keep the money flowing they destroyed the south’s infrastructure and freed their unpaid labor. Seems like a funny way to make money.
When you say everyone went along with it, you mean Congress, the Supreme Court, and the US Army. Huh. That’s a lot of people just going along with it. Lincoln must have been the greatest politician of all time.
I knocked your stupid question out of the park. My answer was precisely correct and you know it. You just don't like it, but you cannot find a single crack in it.
Lincoln was America's first actual dictator.
They initially sought to keep the money flowing. When the Washington power initiated the war, they all thought it would be over quickly. When they eventually realized it was going to be a long slow horrible trudge, it became in their best interest to destroy as much of the South's economic power as possible.
But to clarify their motives more, it wasn't just about the South producing all that money. It was a far bigger threat than just losing that money stream. The South was going to allow much cheaper priced European goods to flow into all the states with access to the Mississippi river watershed, and this would wreck the domestic markets of the big money power industrialists in the North East.
It would also start the Union hemorrhaging states, territories, and economic power. No, the Independence of the Southern states was a grave threat to the economic interests of powerful people who pretty much controlled the US Government.
Rhetorical question?
No, I'm asking your opinion, yes or no, & why?.
Of course I think it's impossible for you guys to answer, honestly, but give it a try, please.
Good luck with that one.
But neither outgoing President Buchanan nor incoming President Lincoln declared it a "rebellion" until it actually became a rebellion, after Fort Sumter.
Then everyone could see & understand that Fire Eaters had not just declared their secession, but also war against the United States.
That made it simple.
So let's see what one-note song DiogenesLamp keeps singing, over & over & over...
DiogenesLamp: "See that pile of money on New York?
Almost *ALL* of that money came from Southern exports.
If you don't think the money powers in New York and the Government powers in Washington DC would want a war fought over that money, you are a fool."
Oh, right, that song.
The truth: about half of US 1860 export revenues came from one crop: Deep South cotton.
The rest came from dozens of items including Midwestern beef & grain products, Northern metal (iron, copper) products and Border State tobacco.
In 1861, when cotton was deleted, US exports fell 35% overall.
As for who, exactly, is "a fool", one of the Confederacy's most gallant leaders was Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan.
In November 1862 his camp newpaper, The Vidette had this to say:
DiogenesLamp: "It was a far bigger threat than just losing that money stream.
The South was going to allow much cheaper priced European goods to flow into all the states with access to the Mississippi river watershed, and this would wreck the domestic markets of the big money power industrialists in the North East."
That specter was indeed raised by some at the time, however, it's totally unrealistic.
Any use of the Mississippi watershed would require importers to pay tariffs twice -- once in New Orleans to Confederates, then again in, let's say, St. Louis to Union tax collectors.
The extra tariff would eliminate any small competitive advantage from importing through New Orleans.
DiogenesLamp: "It would also start the Union hemorrhaging states, territories, and economic power.
No, the Independence of the Southern states was a grave threat to the economic interests of powerful people who pretty much controlled the US Government."
And by correlation, to the livelihoods of all Americans.
But a major problem with DiogenesLamp's "successful South" scenario is that no Northern state would be willing to reimpose slavery as their price for joining the Confederacy.
And the new Confederate constitution went to great lengths to make certain slavery could never again be challenged there.
“From 1820 to 1860 Illinois had the highest percentage growth in it’s freed-black population of any state in the Union.
So it sounds to me like their exclusion laws were not so strictly enforced”
***
Try again. While those things are true mostly, you are missing a few key points.
They passed the black codes and when that didnt stop the blacks in the 1830s and 1840s then they put it in their constitution in the late 1840s.
However most of the growth until that point can be attributed to natural birth rate growth. They weren’t importing a lot of blacks.... not at all.
The black growth rate from 1840 to 1850 BEFORE the constitution change is significantly higher than 1850 to 1860 AFTER the constitution change. The growth rate really slowed.
But from 1860 to 1870 when all those IL black code laws were repealed, by the legislature, the growth rate exploded.
But before the laws were repealed the percentage of free blacks in IL always hovered below 1%.
See, just quoting stats is never the whole picture. You can’t form an accurate historical narrative with just that one element. So much more goes into it.
It’s funny to me that everyone of these lost causers blames Lincoln for everything. He had the Republican controlled Congress that supported him, and the electorate that elected him twice. Even Buchanan wouldn’t just let the southern states go and after Fort Sumter was fired on he believed that the US had to suppress the rebellion.
The other thing they miss (or don’t want to acknowledge)is that it really wouldn’t have mattered who the Republican candidate was, the south had already stated that just the election of a Republican to the presidency would result in them rebelling. They had already threatened it in the 1856 election when Fremont was the candidate, then followed through in the 1860 election.
The fire eaters in the south actually thought, as many people did, that Seward was going to win the republican nomination. They wanted him to get it because he was seen as more abolitionist than any of the other candidates.
The fire eaters were determined to leave no matter which Republican won the presidency. And I don’t see any of the other Republicans just letting the south go if they had been President.
Wishful thinking. I answered it precisely correct, and you know it.
If I understood him correctly, he seems to think fugitive slaves should have been freed during the war, then re-enslaved & returned to their Confederate "masters" after the war!!
And here you are trying to deliberately distort what I said. This is why I generally do not bother with you. You cannot be objective on anything. You will only see things in a manner that fits with what you wish to believe.
When something is factually correct, continuously pointing this out is indeed redundant, but some of you insist on ignoring the money side of the equation because it interferes with what you wish to believe.
I keep pointing it out in an effort to break through your cognitive dissonance.
The existing liberal power structure of New York and Washington DC acquired control of the nation in the runup to the civil war, and this exact same power structure (North Eastern elites) are still running the nation today.
Conservatives are fighting them, but they control the News, the Entertainment, and the publishing businesses.
He started a war rather than accept the decision of states to leave. Since the right to independence is the very foundation of our own nation, he was in the wrong.
I will agree with you that our nation was founded on the right to independence. However, the founding fathers made it clear that it should not be because of light or transient causes but after a long train of abuses and usurpations. I don’t believe that not liking who was elected President through a free and fair election in a constitutional republic rises to that level. You obviously do.
Question for you. If a President was elected that promised to do everything he can to reverse Roe v Wade and California or New York then declared their independence because of that. Then grabbed every bit of federal property within their states. Sent emissaries to other pro-choice states to try and get them to rebel. Would you want the US to just let them go?
The operative words here are "should not." If you read it carefully, it asserts the right as inviolable. So "should not" is a suggestion, not a command or requirement.
The right to independence also allows for frivolous reasons. There is no requirement to have good reasons for wanting to leave.
and California or New York then declared their independence because of that. Then grabbed every bit of federal property within their states. Sent emissaries to other pro-choice states to try and get them to rebel. Would you want the US to just let them go?
This has been discussed. My position is that if they agree to pay their portion of the national debt they helped create, then I would prefer they be out immediately. The only caveat is that our military must have access to Pacific ocean port facilities, and if that can be worked out, I see no problem with getting rid of those lunatic troublemakers.
No it didn't. It came from consumers who purchased the goods, who were overwhelmingly in the north. You seem to believe that southern planters grew their cotton, hired ships to take it across the Atlantic, traded it for an equivalent amount of English goods, then brought it back to the US and paid the tariff out of their pockets before selling it direct to consumers. In fact, the growers sold their cotton to middlemen at a spot price. Those middlemen shipped the cotton to Europe, perhaps with an order in place at a price, or to be sold at a spot price on arrival. Entirely separately, American merchants, feeling there is a market, order English goods and have them shipped to the US, paying the tariff upon arrival. They then sell those goods to consumers, factoring the tariff into the price. The grower of cotton is not, ipso facto, an importer of European goods or the payer of the tariff on those goods.
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.