>>Kalamata wrote: “The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Leaving aside for a moment your unfamiliarity of Confederate history,”
What did I write, “Montgomery”? LOL! So, sue me.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “even had South Carolina been an independent country at the time Anderson moved his troops from one fort to another both of them were the property of the U.S. government. Why was moving an act of war?”
South Carolina was an independent country under the Constitution in effect at that time. I admit, that is a hard concept for Lincolnites to grasp.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter. Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Once again we see that you will easily believe anything no matter how ridiculous if it fits your agenda. Stop and think for a change. Sumter is on an island in the middle of Charleston harbor. The wharves where the goods are landed are a miles away on the mainland. How does Fort Sumter collect tariffs when it is nowhere near where the goods are landed? And if Fort Sumter was the tariff collection point then what was the purpose of the Customs House on East Bay Street, right where the wharves were?
I don’t have an agenda; and whether Fort Sumter was a tax collection point, or not, is inconsequential to the narrative. But if that is all you have to support your agenda, by all means, use it.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Why?”
Because he said so? Of course, Lincoln was an accomplished liar, so perhaps he was lying at the time. But since I am not smart enough to tell when he was lying, I assume Lincoln was always telling the truth. Therefore, I submit that Lincoln was a constitution-hating, abolition-hating, white supremacist, white separatist, crony-capitalist, power-hungry thug.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Say for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal and the Confederacy became a sovereign nation.”
There is no argument. The Constitution is crystal clear that the general government was authorized no power over state sovereignty and secession. Show me where the general government was authorized that power, and I will admit I am wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “What difference would it have made for the U.S. what the Confederate tariffs were? What was the impact? And please don’t post newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial. Facts please. Why do you think it mattered?”
Free (or limited duty) trade in the Southern States would have destroyed the crony-capitalist system adopted by the Lincoln’s Whig party.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia’s secession:”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “But that conversation was not recorded until April 1865. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be more than a touch of loser revisionism in Dabney’s account of his conversation with Baldwin but it isn’t like it was an extemporaneous account of the meeting.”
That conversation was alluded to throughout Lincoln’s political career, and forcefully emphasized during his first inaugural address.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The term would be accurate if it were renamed to ‘Lost Constitutioners’.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “I always find it amusing when Lost Causers accuse Lincoln of ignoring the Constitution and yet will bend themselves all out of shape to justify Davis’ infractions.”
Why must you resort to straw men? Do you find it impossible to justify Lincoln’s tyranny, otherwise?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Fair enough if true. Great Britain was by far the largest importer of raw cotton so any harm from reciprocal tariffs would have to be there. What was the tariff they placed on U.S. cotton imports? And what did the South import from overseas in large enough quantities that the tariff harmed them so much?”
Those were the grievances. Look them up.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Yeah, everyone who doesn’t kiss Lincoln’s ring is a liar. I get it . . .
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “And everyone who questions your crap is a Lincoln apoligist and a liar, too. I get that as well.”
Only when they lie.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “How? What difference would it make if the Confederacy had a zero tariff and goods landed in Charleston? Once they passed to the U.S. they would pay the same tariff that they would pay if they went directly to New York would they not?”
No.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “You say that as if abiding by their constitution was of interest to Davis and the Confederate congress.”
Of course it was. The economic policies of the Confederate Constitution are the most economically sound polices ever comprised. Naturally the crony-capitalist Lincolnites would abhor them.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Blockading ports is considered an act of war.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Not if they’re your own ports.”
You mean, not if you are a Lincolnite, rather than a constitutionalist.
Mr. Kalamata
Oh really? Perhaps it's because it's hard to grasp the nuances of constitutions that didn't exist? Or maybe they did. Sumter was built on territory deeded to the federal government by act of the South Carolina legislature. What changed that? Can you point me to a copy of the constitution that the independent country of South Carolina had adopted in December 1860? Can you point me to where that, or the eventual Confederate constitution, automatically made Sumter Confederate property?
I don’t have an agenda...
LOL! Of course you don't.
...and whether Fort Sumter was a tax collection point, or not, is inconsequential to the narrative. But if that is all you have to support your agenda, by all means, use it.
You claim Fort Sumter was a tax collection site. I'm just pointing out how illogical that claim is. Why would tariffs be collected at Fort Sumter?
Because he said so? Of course, Lincoln was an accomplished liar, so perhaps he was lying at the time. But since I am not smart enough to tell when he was lying, I assume Lincoln was always telling the truth. Therefore, I submit that Lincoln was a constitution-hating, abolition-hating, white supremacist, white separatist, crony-capitalist, power-hungry thug.
Perhaps it's your odd-ball interpretation rather than Lincoln's words?
There is no argument. The Constitution is crystal clear that the general government was authorized no power over state sovereignty and secession. Show me where the general government was authorized that power, and I will admit I am wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
Actually if there was no argument we wouldn't be having these amusing discussions.
Free (or limited duty) trade in the Southern States would have destroyed the crony-capitalist system adopted by the Lincoln’s Whig party.
How?
That conversation was alluded to throughout Lincoln’s political career, and forcefully emphasized during his first inaugural address.
LOL! No it wasn't.
Why must you resort to straw men? Do you find it impossible to justify Lincoln’s tyranny, otherwise?
Straw men or hypocrisy? You condemn what you say is Lincoln's tyranny but complete ignore tyranny on the part of Davis. Tyranny seems to be completely OK with you so long and it's your side doing it.
Those were the grievances. Look them up.
I'm looking for facts, not grievances. What were the British tariff rates on U.S. cotton imports?
Only when they lie.
LOL! Lie? Because you say so?
No.
Why not? How would they have avoided it?
Of course it was. The economic policies of the Confederate Constitution are the most economically sound polices ever comprised. Naturally the crony-capitalist Lincolnites would abhor them.
The Confederate constitution itself could claim almost anything but when the government ignored it at will then it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
You mean, not if you are a Lincolnite, rather than a constitutionalist.
Which do you claim to be?
“Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.”
Charles Pickney South Carolina ratification convention1788
It would have economically destroyed the powerful men that were backing Lincoln. Northern shipping, manufacturing, banking, insurance, warehousing, and countless other industries would have been badly damaged by direct trade between the South and Europe.
It wasn't about the 65 million or so in Federal revenue. It was about hundreds of millions of dollars lost to Lincoln's wealthy backers in the North East.