icclearly: "Well, that's your opinion, and we all get to have an opinion.
That's not DiLorenzo's opinion.
Sorry, I come closer to believing a PhD as opposed to some keyboard warrior."
So, I'm certain you know the definitions of these college degree words:
I'm saying it's ridiculous to accuse Lincoln, or others, of being words they didn't even know.
What Lincoln was, in his own terms, and those of Americans who voted for him in 1860, was a moderate abolitionist.
In Southern terms, Lincoln was a radical abolitionist.
quoting BJK: "Lincoln's views on slavery were more abolitionist...."
icclearly: "Oh sure.
That's why he waited until 1863 to issue his Emancipation Proclamation.
He jumped right on that little initiative that many believe was a main cause of the war."
In the eyes of 1860 Southern secessionists, Lincoln was a radical abolitionist, and that's why they must immediately declare secession.
In fact, Lincoln was a moderate abolitionist, who wanted gradual steps toward abolition, not radical change.
quoting BJK: "That first tariff was intended to not only provide Federal Revenues but also to protect US producers."
icclearly: "Oh yeah.
Them tariffs worked out really well!
Interesting, you did not make reference to the later tariffs in 1828, the biggie, the Tariff of Abominations that hit the South like a sledgehammer."
Southerners like Virginian James Madison and South Carolina's John C. Calhoun were totally in favor of protective tariffs from 1789 until 1828, when Calhoun himself supported the "Tariff of Abominations".
However, from 1790 to 1812 those first tariffs were set in the range of 10% on average.
After the War of 1812 US tariffs rose to circa 20%.
At the time, such rates were considered adequate to fund Federal government, pay down US debts and protect US producers, both agricultural and manufacturing.
What dramatically changed by 1828, forcing US manufacturers to call for 35% and higher tariffs, was Eli Whitney's cotton gin which, by the 1820s had spread throughout US cotton producing regions.
The cotton gin helped drive cotton exports to double roughly every ten years from 1800 through 1860.
By the 1820s, Brits were buying all the cotton Southerners could produce, but where was the money coming from to pay for Southern cotton?
The money came from British exports of manufactured goods to Northern big cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia & Baltimore.
The Brits were dumping their exports into Northern manufacturing cities to earn money necessary to pay for Southern cotton.
Naturally, Northerners didn't like it, and the War of 1812 had taught hard lessons in the necessity for US manufacturing independence -- we must not become dependent on the Brits for our economic or military security.
That is the Root Cause of the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which finally, after 30 years, put into stark relief the economic issues separating Northern from Southern interests, and forced the previously pro-tariff SC Sen. John C. Calhoun to become highly anti-Tariff of Abominations.
All that said, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations only passed because of the support of -- not New Englanders, who opposed it -- but Southerners other than Calhoun -- men like Kentucky's Henry Clay and Tennessee's Andrew Jackson, who was elected President Jackson in 1828.
Bottom line: after 1828, many Southerners opposed high tariffs, not because they wanted to purchase British & French imports, but rather because they needed Northerners to purchase such imports and so support the European economies which purchased Southern cotton.
quoting BJK: "No Federalist, Whig or Republican US president would ever abandon the United States to our enemies.
Nor would Democrats like Jefferson, Madison or Andrew Jackson, among others."
icclearly: "There you go again.
Just another of your opinions.
All three of those were Southerners, and you or I don't know how they would have handled the war.
The war was about "a divorce." "
Sorry, but you don't know our history, and that may well explain why you are so confused about it.
In fact, we know exactly what Presidents Jefferson, Madison and Andrew Jackson would do, because we know what they did do when faced with threats of secession:
icclearly: "Lincoln, the tyrant, won, and the South lost.
That's the bottom line.
And the remnants of the cultural differences still linger with us to this day."
Lincoln was no more a "tyrant" than any other wartime president, or indeed than was Jefferson Davis.
The South lost for three main reasons:
WOW! So now you're trying to tell us that academic accomplishments don't count? I do wonder why those fancy degrees correlate to more life income and accomplishments.
Now, that there is one more stretch.
So, what are your academic accomplishments that makes your opinion so much more valuable or accurate than PhD DiLorenzo?
Lincoln was no more a "tyrant" than any other wartime president, or indeed than was Jefferson Davis. The South lost for three main reasons:
Thanks for admitting that Lincoln was a tyrant. That's exactly what DiLorenzo had to say.
On a related note, exactly what did Davis do that made him a tyrant? Hell, Davis was President for only three years. There are/were monuments erected all throughout the South supporting Davis after the war celebrating him. I'm all ears to hear what he did that made him a tyrant to the people in the South.
Today's Southern suburbs, smaller towns and rural communities have much more in common with their Northern and Western equivalents than they do with Southern big cities like Atlanta, New Orleans or Houston.
Well, we agree on one thing. Inner cities of Atlanta, New Orleans, and Houston are shitholes, just like their northern brothers and sisters. A big contributor is the migration of those escaping them wonderful cities in the north and west to the south for a better life due in part to the culture and better way of life. Just look at the crime statistics of those inner cities if you doubt.
If you believe that the suburbs and the rural south have the same culture and values as their Northern neighbors, you're simply making it up. Look at the county-by-county electoral map of the last election for a clue.
There you go. Just continue to make it all up with your ill-informed opinions.