Replies

What better way to explain why the South seceded than by using the words of the North

By using words of the leaders of the south? They seceded, they began the war, they had their reasons. And as I've pointed out the single most important reason for their act of rebellion was defense of slavery. But surely you have something to show me wrong?

Nowhere have I seen the 95% figure you gave.

That figure is from "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen Wise. He sources a document titled "Statement Showing the Amount of Revenue Collected Annually in each Collection District from June 30, 1854 to June 30, 1859, Together With the Amount Expended and Persons Employed in Each District.", Executive Document No.44, 36th Congress, 1st Session, 1860. For the year 1858 to 1859 there were $42.7 million collected in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. For that same period for the 11 busiest southern ports the collections totalled about $2.8 million.

My readings indicate that European goods were shipped through Southern ports to avoid the heavy taxation of their goods in the north.

A simple reading of the Constitution would show how ridiculous that statement is. Tariffs are applied on imports and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 states that those duties will uniform throughout the states. The tariff in New York was the same as the tariff in Charleston.

Again, I've not seen the figure that you attribute to Alexander. If I am wrong, and he is right I will say so. I don't believe I am wrong.

Of course you don't believe you're wrong. I could keep providing proof after proof, evidence upon evidence, and you would still cling to your southron myths.

The quote if from a speech Stephens gave in January 1861. "Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; it is that of revenue, or means of supporting government. From official documents, we learn that a fraction over three-fourths of the revenue collected for the support of government has uniformly been raised in the North."

So you have figures showing that 95% of tariff reveune raised in the North and Stephens saying that over 75% of the revenue is raised in the North. Your turn.

bill clinton would be proud of the way you play with words. You aren't a lawyer are you?

If true, then sad to say the only explanation is that Clinton has more respect for the truth than you do. Could that be the reason?

They weren't a legitimate government only in the way that the United States wasn't a legitimate government before it had defeated the British in war.

They weren't a legitimate government because none of the world's nations recognized them as such. They were nothing more than a rebellious section of the U.S.

As General Cleburne wrote, the winners write the history so I guess we will call it a civil war.

And the losers write the myths, as your posts continue to show.

That the Morill Tariff was voted in shortly after two of the states to be taxed had already withdrawn, and more than two months before the rest withdrew and hostilities commenced indicates the direction the Union was heading.

If the tariff was such a bone of contention they why didn't the Democrat platforms of 1860 raise it? Why wasn't it an issue in the declarations of the causes of secession? Why weren't southern leaders decrying it to the heavens, why barely mentioning slavery?

We've read different accounts of the efforts to blockade Charleston and we absolutely interpret the facts differently. You can believe the ones you want but you are still wrong about the importance of Charleston and you also show a lack of understanding about strategy and diplomacy in your disinformation about Fox's assets and mission.

Translation, I don't cling to the same...unique view of things that you do. The fact is that the resupply fleet arrived off Charleston just before the Davis regime initiated hostilities, did not prevent a single ship from entering or leaving the harbor, and left right after the rebel attack. Some blockade.

"Non-Sequitur" That's great.

Yes that's me. Non-Sequitur. The one. The only. Accept no substitutes. I could recommend some alternate names for you, most of two words beginning with a 'B' and an 'S', but this is a family forum.

Good afternoon.

It's stopped snowing, so I'll quit playing and get this done.

I really, really hate to admit that I'm wrong, but I've not been able to find anything to to support my claims regarding the sources of revenues from tariffs. At the same time, I found that the Customs Bureau supports you.

Lifeline of the Confederacy sounds like a fine book, so I've ordered a used copy. I may as well educate myself so that I don't get caught out again.

I'm still not convinced that protectionist tariffs and the differences between urban industrial regions and rural agrarian societies weren't leading causes of the war and I've never said slavery and disagreements on the spread of slavery wasn't a major part of the decision to secede, based as much on economics as not, but everything I seen since I started trying to cover my tracks in this confirms to me that state sovereignty led to the final decision that cost so many lives.

Simple reading of anything can get you in trouble, as I found out. The same goes for the fact you pointed out that tariffs are the same in all the states. Those facts can be interpreted in a different way when you look at what is taxed and who it affects. Tariffs on steel protect and benefit Pennsylvania but not Mississippi. Applying protectionist tariffs to the import of textiles or machinery from Britain or grains from Russia helped the mill worker wage slaves in New England and the western farmer, but hurt the cotton growing Southerner who paid more for those goods while watching the revenues go to Washington to support the Federal government.

From the time the Morrill tariff was approved by the House in 1860 until it was approved by a Republican dominated Senate and signed into law it was a source of anger in the South. Deny it if you will. It just shows your prejudices

I've read much of what the Confederate VP said or wrote since I got myself into this. He seems to be very popular among some people. I haven't found the things you cited, but that doesn't mean anything. I'll look them up sometime. Jefferson Davis is more impressive to me, more a patriot and leader than I had known. I've discovered how much the history of the 19th century interests me and how little I know, so I'll do some research. If I come across anything that proves, or contradicts, what you are saying I'll let you know.

No, it wasn't because bill clinton had any respect for the truth that I compared your way of speaking to his.

You say that no nations recognized the Confederate states and that they were not a legitimate government. The nations that recognized the US in the Revolution did so because they opposed England. It was different in the War for Southern Independence. Had the European nations not liked the American markets and raw goods, or had the South won, the recognition would have come, along with the British rifles and French cannon the South used.

Our interpretations of how the war began are interesting. I have to admit that I can only account for around 500 soldiers and sailors in Gustavus Fox's force. That doesn't mean that there weren't more, just that I haven't found them. The interesting part to me is the way you scoff at the idea that Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot in order to garner popular support. I found that more historians than not buy into that idea.

It made sense. Giving up Sumter meant giving up a claim to a state that had seceded. As long as the US flag flew the Federals could claim that the state was still US property. Persuade the Confederates to tear the Stars and Stripes down and you appeal to jingoism. Even Lincoln's notification that the Fort was to be "resupplied" was a no lose move for him. I've read that Fox, whose plan the relief/resupply mision was, felt that it was feasable but not really worth the effort. That the surrender came quickly worked in the North's favor. Well, considering the blood shed when they tried to retake it later, maybe not.

At any rate, this has been a good lesson for me and I appreciate it. I'll be around.

Non-Sequitur - I love it.

Michael Frazier