The REAL cause of the Civil War.

Vanity | 1957 | Ayn Rand

[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.

[zeestephen]

Since white women could not vote in the 1860s, did that 3/5ths apply only to Black males over a certain age?

For some reason, I never thought to ask that question when I was in high school and college in the 1960s.

[ConservativeMind]

>i> There were tariffs on everything imported from Europe, and the rates varied. The South produced 72% of all trade with Europe, and therefore they were responsible for creating 72% of the tax revenue stream funding the Federal government.

The four times larger Northern population was only creating 28% of the tax revenue for the entire nation.

Even then, the Southern slavers hated US-made items.

Fascinating. Thank you for that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Don't care about what Vice Presidents have to say. The Speech has nothing to do with their right to leave.

The issue is "Do they have a right to leave"?

Not whether you get to sit in judgement over their alleged reasons for leaving.

[Pollard]

Rather than bring up the Civil War which people are still on different sides of the fence over, Ayn Rand's statement could be used to reference our globalist/fascist problems.

All Western governments are doing whatever they want, people be damned, because they want to get rid of the middle class globally so that everyone will be like the people of China. Subservient and tightly controlled worker drones.

[ConservativeMind]

It was already a “Perpetual Union.”

The South had an equal amount of votes in the Senate and extra votes in the House of Representatives, thanks to slave breeding practices giving “3/5ths” a citizen representation in presidential delegates and House seats.

The South had an unfair benefit with its complete emphasis on slavery.

[rockrr]

Another waste of space from the Lost Cause Flat Earth Society...

[BrexitBen]

If the South had been allowed to peacefully secede, as was their constitutional right, slavery would have died a natural death, just as it did everywhere else in the West.

The U.S. would’ve become 6 or 8 confederacies of states, with no foreign ambitions.

Thus, no foreign entanglements, no Jim Crow era, and no constant saber-rattling.

No Federal Reserve, no federal income tax, no border crisis, and no bureaucratic Empire in the Beltway.

Lincoln’s war hurt everyone, then and now.

[jmacusa]

BS. Slavery was the largest source of revenue.

Selling and buying human beings.

You’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

[Mouton]

Keep in mind that the state of Delaware surrounds DC on 3/4ths of the perimeter with confederate Virginia on the rest of the perimeter.

Would that be Maryland spelled as Delaware??

[jmacusa]

You logic is astounding./sar.

[jeffersondem]

“It was a “Perpetual Union.”

Then why did the states leave it, and one by one, join another union?

They weren’t supposed to do that according to the perpetual union.

[DiogenesLamp]

The timing of the war in relation to outside politic events, not to mention the very slavery-specific resolutions of secession adopted by most of the seceding states,

Three or four out of 11 states issued slavery specific reasons. Virginia said they were leaving because the Federal government had become a tyrannical power intent upon forcing subjugation on others.

For some reason, nobody ever wants to cite the most important state of Virginia, they prefer to cite much less significant states.

point to slavery as the central issue.

Well Paul Craig Roberts (Nationally syndicated columnist) puts forth a very interesting explanation for why some of the Southern states asserted slavery as a cause for separation.

His argument in a nutshells is this. The refusal of Northern states to return fugitive slaves was a clear violation of the Constitutional requirement to do so. It equated to a "breach of contract" by the Northern states against the Southern states, and therefore was a valid legal argument to justify getting out of the contract.

Their real complaint was the 200 million per year in their annual trade value being under Northern control where 60% of the money was kept by the Northeast and Washington DC.

But because the Constitution clearly gives congress the authority to set taxes, there was no legal remedy for the problem, and it could not serve as a valid legal argument to get out of the contract.

[texanyankee]

For later

[jeffersondem]

“However, the South had a perverse advantage over all free states in representation, because they got 3/5ths benefit from every slave they could create (breed) or import in, while the North wasn't benefiting from that.”

Didn't the 3/5ths compromise apply to all the slave states - north and south - at the time the constitution was ratified?

[SamAdams76]

Like I said, the makings of a fun thread.

I wish they had more Waffle Houses up north however. That is by far my favorite breakfast restaurant. They get you out of there fast and quick and they are super friendly.

I always get the fried eggs, bacon and grits. I save the toast to feed the birds outside.

[ConservativeMind]

Then why did the states leave it, and one by one, join another union?

They weren't supposed to do that according to the perpetual union.

Correct, they did so without passing through the agreed Constitutional processes.

[DiogenesLamp]

As I understand it, cotton and tobacco were the USA’s biggest exports before the Civil War, but somehow the North made more money off them than the South did.

Absolutely true. Thanks to the laws created by Northern control of Washington DC, much of the money the South produced ended up in New York and Washington DC. (Same corrupt bastards still running the nation today.)

The South produced 72% of the total trade value with Europe.

Here is a visualization that demonstrates where all the money ended up.

[x]

That's shortsighted. Would the successor states really have no foreign ambitions? Some Confederates dreamed of expanding Southward into Central America and the Caribbean. And foreign countries would welcome the opportunity to pit the successor states against each other to increase their own influence here.

The new smaller countries wouldn't have developed a transcontinental economy and might well be poorer. Government could be more powerful in some of them, as it is in Canada and Europe. Racial conflicts would make life in the Confederacy turbulent and hazardous.

Along with all of our problems, America did benefit from being top country for a century in ways that we take for granted now.

[ConservativeMind]

So now the Civil War is due to slaves not being sent back to their owners?

Fascinating.

[Tell It Right]

Sorry. I had Brandon’s home state on the brain. LOL