Posted on 08/01/2022 9:00:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
For some time I have wondered how to explain the cause of the Civil War in simple terms that are easy to understand. I now see that Ayn Rand did it years ago. Laws passed by a Northern controlled Congress routed all the money produced by the South into Northern "elite" pockets.
But why would you call the supposed import tariff and its use “unfair” if they all agreed to it?
That is why a legal framework was to be followed. Because all agreed to make the status quo what it was and became.
I doubt that. Largest source of "capital" in the South, but not revenue.
Selling and buying human beings.
The slave market had 200 million dollars per year in sales? That's how much the South exported in value to Europe.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
And the same is true of you. You allege the slave market was making more money every year than all the production of the entire South.
So please post evidence that the slave market was producing greater than 200 million in sales per year.
At home, I use farm eggs fried in Kerrygold butter but don't expect that option to be in even the finest of breakfast diners!
Ironically, two Ivy League schools, Brown and Yale, are named after their first major benefactors, who both obtained their massive fortunes in the slave trade. And, at northern points of entry.
Slavery thrived in the North, until it was no longer necessary.
Then, it suddenly became the South’s great sin, according to the northern virtue-signalers.
I think they would have done, and I also think mores states of the Union would secede and join the confederacy after the initial question of secession was settled in favor of the Southern states.
The new smaller countries wouldn't have developed a transcontinental economy and might well be poorer.
No guarantee that they would have been poorer, they might have been wealthier. All that blood and treasure expended in trying to maintain independence would have gone to more worthwhile pursuits.
And a transcontinental railroad was inevitable. I've seen people allege that the Railways act of 1862 was just a payoff to Lincoln's powerful supporters in the railroad industry.
They were certainly given immense wealth to build those railroads.
Racial conflicts would make life in the Confederacy turbulent and hazardous.
That is an area in which things might not have turned out better.
Don't oversimplify. Paul Craig Roberts asserts this is the legal argument for secession, but not the actual reason why they wanted secession.
The Panera by me (Urbandale, a suburb of Des Moines, Iowa) has a drive-thru and is hardly more expensive than fast food places. Great food and plays host to numerous conservative causes.
Michele Bachmann is a friend of the owners and I’ve seen her there several times, unpublicized.
Coffee isn’t great, but I’m an espresso guy.
This is correct. The right is given by God, and no manmade law may constrain it.
Forcing people to remain in a Union is no different from forcing a slave to serve you. It violates human rights.
That option is clearly spelled out in the predecessor document known as "The Declaration of Independence."
It clearly states that it is the right of all people to dissolve a government they see as no longer serving their interests and forming a new one which does.
And more importantly there is nothing in the US Const. prohibiting it either.
“Northern aggression”???
Who fired the first shot?
I believe that is the confederate states...
Against Fort Sumpter...
Try again..
You lose
So just who invaded who?
Lincoln. He sent a fleet of warships with orders to attack the Confederates. This *CAUSED* them to attack Sumter.
No warships, no war. It's that simple.
Lincoln started the war because he needed the war. 200 Million dollars per year was getting away from his corrupt buddies in the Northeast.
I don’t agree about IHOP. I’m in Winston-Salem and we have not had good luck with them here. There was a passable one downtown that closed many years ago. The current one on University Pkwy is expensive and understaffed. It’s ok if you don’t know any better. Just a couple of hundred yards away is a Waffle House that is as good as any I have ever been in. The quality of WH varies dependent on the skill of the staff. The IHOP depends on their corporate policies. We don’t bother with them anymore.
The constitution contained two forms of legal plunder absolutely built into it. Slavery which legally steals another man’s labor and the tariffs which we are talking about here. The Yankees treatment of the former slaves during reconstruction gives the lie to their claim of “trampling out the vintage.” It seems obvious to me, sure I’m the only one, that these here want to do for their cause exactly what they accuse the “lost causers” of doing for theirs.
I know the discussion will go on and on and spin into the same rut again, and that is fine as long as first things and more important things are dealt with first. Please be warned everyone, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement!”
“As I recall, senators were equally appropriated between North and South states...”
They were fewer Southern states, and yes, Southern cotton, etc. were being taxed and the money was spent in the North.
What’s a grit???
It was only about money. It was never about anything else.
The South voted for the same Import Tariffs and the North.
They may have done in the 1820s and 1830s, but by the 1850s, they consistently voted to stop raising the tariffs because *THEY* were the ones who ended up paying most of them.
Northern tariffs ranged from 35% to 50%. Confederacy tariffs were about 13%.
So tell me, who likes to pay more taxes? Do you?
It’s the stuff the hogs won’t eat
;’}
If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn’t get it!
LOL!!!
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.