Posted on 03/05/2008 6:38:02 PM PST by Rebeleye
Does the Confederate battle flag represent heritage or hatred? The answer is yes. It represents a heritage that included hatred.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.mywebpal.com ...
Robert E. Lee said that the talk of Sucession was nothing more or less than rebellion.
If Sucession was legal, then the writ of Secession by a state could have been considered by the Legislature or by the Supreme Court. Rather than accept that, the South stole Federal Property, and raised armies, the act of a violent rebellion.
Only much later, after the violent rebellion miserably failed, (in part due to the bravery of entire regiments of southern men who fought against the rebels) was the legal argument raised.
Actually, they were rarely forced, but were free to go. Ben Frankin’s son went. Many British merchants continued to come to the US to do business. Some stayed. Others went home. Ships left almost every day for England, or arrived almost every day from England.
Exception!~ Many Iroquois tribesmen (some of which are my ancestors) who had attacked settlements in supposed support of British policy were driven out by Sullivan’s punitive rate. Many others were able to stay, to include the famous “Red Jacket” and “Handsome Lake”.
The southern men who were not slave owners were drafted, just as coerced into fighting as the slaves were coerced into servitude.
To protect the slave owners from their slaves, and to secure the slave owner’s supposed rights to the coerced labor of the slaves, the southern states had militia units where service of free white men was required. Those who met certain qualifications, such as owning enough slaves, were exempt from coerced service.
Contempory writings such as the Sucession documents? These clearly state that the north’s efforts to end slavery was a major cause, if not THE cause. At the time of the secession convention of Texas, the Tariffs were low, and the high Morill tariffs were only passed because southern representatives were absent.
Usurp. That is what the southern state governments did. They tried to usurp the legitimate authority of the US government, and prevented it from collecting tariff duties that were its lawful due. Not to mention the theft of federal property at forts and arsenals.
Lies, theft, to continue their rights to torture and perversion. Such southern gentlemen.
The average citizen voted to secede. I don’t believe they voted to secede to enable a small group to keep their slaves. They voted to secede, because they didn’t like other people interfering in their business.
Wrong. The legal argument was raised by Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina in the 1830’s!
I think you need to study your history. I had three ancestors that fought for the Confederacy. They weren’t “coerced”........
Sir:
I have never seen so much bullsh*t spouted at one time.
As we say in Texas “Don’t p*ss down my back and tell me it’s raining!”
You seriously need to take an American History Course.
There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally. So since their acts were illegal, that made them a rebellion.
“There was no right for a state to leave the Union unilaterally.”
Show me where in the US Constitution, as it existed in 1860 and 1861, where states were precluded from seceding.
“They tried to usurp the legitimate authority of the US government, and prevented it from collecting tariff duties that were its lawful due.”
Tariff duties that disproportionately affected the Southern states. The Southern states contributed the lion’s share to the federal coffers, but the vast, vast majority of those revenues were spent up north. The South seceded because they were getting screwed economically.
About what I expect from someone from Granolaland. Get a grip, you know nothing of southern heritage or honor for that fact. And the comment on perversion?.....lol...this coming from someone from California.
“If the South had freed its slaves why would it have seceded in the first place?”
For the same reason it did in reality: To retain its economic interests. The South believed that the United States, as created and accepted, was a nation of individual sovereign states that entered into a compact for certain mutual benefits, and through that compact the states allowed for a small and limited federal government to have certain enumerated (specified) and limited powers, all other powers to remain with the states and the people. Abe Lincoln (and some of the Northern states, but not all) thought that the states were subordinate to and subservient to the federal government.
What economic interests would that be?
To retain its economic interests. The South believed that the United States, as created and accepted, was a nation of individual sovereign states that entered into a compact for certain mutual benefits, and through that compact the states allowed for a small and limited federal government to have certain enumerated (specified) and limited powers, all other powers to remain with the states and the people. Abe Lincoln (and some of the Northern states, but not all) thought that the states were subordinate to and subservient to the federal government.
And what was it exactly that the mean old Republicans were advocating that suddenly upset the applecart?
If that is true then wouldn't one expect federal revenue to dry up once the rebellion began? After all no cotton was being exported, no imports were being bought by Southern consumers, so in theory no tariffs should have been collected. Yet in Fisal Year 1864 over $100 million in duties were reported by the governmenet. Where did it all come from?
And your claim that 'the vast majority were spent up north?' What do you have to support that? The federal budget in the year prior to the rebellion was about $60 million, and of that Alexander Stephens detailed that some $5 million was spent to subsidize southern postal services. So right off the bat almsot 10 percent of the budget went to the south, a not inconsiderable sum. So of the remainder what percentage was spent in the north and on what?
There is nothing there to prevent it, so there is no reason why a state may not be permitted to leave. The question is in the manner in which they leave. Since states are only admitted to begin with when a majority of the existing states approve as indicated by a vote in both houses of Congress, and since they are permitted to split or combine or change their border by a fraction of an inch only with the approval of the existing states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress, and since they are forbidden to take certain actions which may impact the interests of other states without approval of Congress, then it's no great stretch to come to the conclusion that leaving should require the same thing. States may leave with the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. States remaining have rights that need to be protected, as do the states leaving. You keep ignoring that. The only way to make sure the separation is peaceful and equitable is to negotiate issues of disagreement, vote on the proposal, and wave the departing states bye,bye.
In fact, here's a link to to a detailed breakdown of federal expenditures in the years just prior to the war. Out of total revenues of about 88 million dollars, about $6 or $7 million went to federal payroll, $1.4 million went to supporting embassies abroad, $17 million went to "miscellaneous", which included everything from the postal service to surveying costs in Texas. A few million more went to the Indian department and military pensions. $25 million went to the army (which as we know, was largely deployed in the west before the war) and 14 million went to the Navy. FInally, $10-17 million went to paying the public debt. A surplus of about 5 million dollars was left in the treasury.
Take a look and identify where the vast majority (hell, just make it a slight majority--$45 million) is being spent exclusively to the north's benefit.
“...then it’s no great stretch to come to the conclusion that leaving should require the same thing.”
Your argument holds no water because it only applies to restrictions placed on states that are — and remain — in the Union (i.e., as long as they are part of the Union they are bound by certain parameters); however, once they leave the Union (and you admit they are not constitutionally precluded from leaving) they are no longer bound by any of the Union’s conditions.
“The only way to make sure the separation is peaceful and equitable is to negotiate issues of disagreement, vote on the proposal, and wave the departing states bye,bye.”
Or, the remaining states can be grown up about it and not throw a hissy fit because they see some of their revenues going bye, bye.
Here it is in a nutshell.
The Southern states’ economy was agriculturally based, with its major crops being cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice. Its biggest trading partner was Europe. The Southern states exported their crops to Europe, and in return imported manufactured goods (especially from England). In 1828 a developing Anerican manufacturing interest (located almost exclusively in the Northern states) sought protection from its competitors in Europe and the oppressive Tariff of Abominations was passed in 1828. (A tariff is, I’m sure you know, a tax on imported goods.) That tariff was passed by Northern congressmen, since the North dominated Congress due to its higher population. That tariff was followed by the tariff of 1832, and sectional animosity began to rise.
The federal treasury got 90% of its revenues from tariffs. Since the Northen states imported very little, the tariffs fell almsot exclusively on the Southern states. The tariffs protected Nothern manufacturing interests but raised the cost of everyday living in the South, and of course adversely affected the South’s commerce with its European trading partners.
More than 80% of the revenues generated by these tariffs were spent up North for public works and infrastructure (including subsidizing industrial works and railroads: The North had an extensive railroad apparatus, where the South had very few track miles in comparison).
Then, in the late 1850s, Congress began to debate the creation of what was known as the Morrill Tariff. The Morrill Tariff called for raising the tariff rate from 15% to 37%, to be increased to almost 50% within three years. Almost 90% of the Northern congressman favored it, and 90% of the Southern congressman opposed it. Abe Lincoln, in campaigning for the presidency, supported the Morrill Tariff and vowed to sign it if he were elected president. The Morrill Tariff would have been disastrous to Southern economic interests. Since it was obvious that a new Lincoln Adminstration would sign the Morrill Tariff Act as soon as he took office (and he did, signing it early in 1861 upon taking office), Southern states began to secede, beginning with South Carolina in December, 1860.
To get a flavor of the cause of the Civil War from dispassionate and neutral sources, one can simply read the Eurpoean accounts of the conflict, both contemporary and historical. Even Karl Marx (who had no love at all for the Confederacy), called the Civil War a “tariff war.” European writers said that staying in the Union would cost the South millions, but the Southern states leaving the Union would cost the North millions.
So, how did the North finance the Civil War since it lost its tariff revenues? Initially, it borrowed the money. Then, it passed the Revenue Act of 1862 which raised taxes and initiated the first federal income tax. It also created what would become the Internal Revenue Service.
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.