Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission was created by Congress to inform the public about the impact Abraham Lincoln had on the development of our nation, and to find the best possible ways to honor his accomplishments. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives appointed a fifteen-member commission to commemorate the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln and to emphasize the contribution of his thoughts and ideals to America and the world.
The official public Bicentennial Commemoration launches February 2008 and closes February 2010, with the climax of the Commemoration taking place on February 12, 2009, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.
Across the country communities, organizations and individuals have already begun to plan parades, museum exhibitions, performances, art installations and much more.
tick, tick, tick...
Why not call it what it is? A vain attempt to find some sort of logic in your posts.
Given the choice between 18% and 32%, shippers would be foolish to send their goods through New York. Hello Charleston and New Orleans. Hello direct trade up the Mississippi. Goodbye Erie Canal.
That would depend on where the customers are, wouldn't it? If the customer is in New York then the goods are going to go to New York regardless of what the New York tariff is and regardless of what the confederate tariff is.
With secession, it was the Northern manufacturing that was screwed.
Well no, they weren't. Northern manufacturers could still sell to southern consumers. But the southern consumer had the same 14% tacked on regardless of where the goods came from. Bristol or Boston, didn't matter. So the Northern manufacturer, with lower shipping rates, could compete with Europe without problem.
No they weren't. Protected US products were generally inferior in quality.
And you base that on what?
Actually, the "small amount" of foreign trade that you refer to was about 1/3 of the entire import picture.
Stephens put it at 25% but regardless, it was a fraction of the Northern demand for imports.
That was a very large amount of trade that would go to the lowest priced products. Those could be from any place in the world. The loss of dependency of the South on the Northern manufacturing was the major factor in trade direction changes coming from secession.
Those European goods would be taxed at the same 14% rate the Northern goods were. Their transportation costs would be higher. There is no reason at all why the North couldn't compete for southern consumers in terms of price. Especially to keep their markets. After all, they had the U.S. tariff to protect their domestic and to subsidize their export market.
Why ship through Northern ports and pay high tariffs?
And goods entering the U.S. would pay the U.S. tariff, regardless of where it is landed. I don't understand how you can believe that goods landed in the confederacy and then shipped to U.S. consumers would avoid paying tariff. Perhaps you can explain how that would work?
Then why did New York threaten to secede?
New York didn't threaten to secede. Fernando Wood wanted to secede and suggested it to the New York City Common Council. His plan proved so bizarre that the council didn't bother voting on it, and Wood was unceremoniously dumped from office in 1862.
You are blowing smoke again, Dearie.
Now there's the pot calling the kettle black!
So you're suggesting that before the rebellion Northern consumers paid a lower price for cotton than the world market set? Wasn't that kind of, I don't know, stupid of them?
If England bid the price up that would mean that their demand increased while the supply did not. The market set the price for cotton. If Europe bid up the price then the Northern consumer had to meet it. That would be true regardless of whether the south seceded or not.
But more importantly, Northern mills would now have to compete with English mill imports being sent directly to the South at half the tariff price. They either found new markets, or cut prices by the cost of the tariff.
And you don't think they would do what they had to do to keep their markets?
My, my, my, sombody sure has her panties in a wad, doesn't she?
You are correct in that the first shots were not fired on Sumter in April of 61. They were, however fired at a merchant vessel, The Star of the West in Charleston Harbor in January of 61 when President Buchanan attempted to not only resupply Sumter, but also reinforce it with additional troops on that ship. Lincoln made no attempt to reinforce Sumter, only to resupply it.
As to the rest of your pathetic attempt at logic, forgive me for ROTFLMAO.
BTW, "Honey," during those same four months numerous Federal facilities from armories to mints (with bullion that belonged to all Americans) were unilaterally seized by the Rebels. Any of those acts is by definition, insurrection and an act justifying war.
As to "invading" states that had not seceded, it never happened. The same call for troops issued by Lincoln to the governors of Pennslvania, New York and other Northern states was also issued to the governors of Virginia, North Carolina and the other slave states that had not yet seceded.
.................... crickets .................
To be accurate, the Harriet Lane fired a shot across the bow, (not at) a ship sailing without a flag -- a very serious breach of international maritime law. She was rightfully "shot at" in 1860, and the exact same would have happened in 1850 or 1830 and it would have happened just the same outside any harbor in the world not just Charleston.
Run without a flag and you are presumed to be either a pirate or a smuggler.
Is that so? I'm sure you have a source for that as well as some explanation of how the pitiful little North who never bought anything from Europe managed to survive for 4 years without collecting tariffs from Southerners.
Thanks for playing...
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.