No, just not willing to accept something that makes no sense as God's honest truth becaue the all knowing, all wise, all wonderful ought-six says it it.
It doesn’t make any difference at what port the tariff duties were collected, but who paid the tax (i.e., who was the purchaser of the goods). Southern interests were by far and large the major purchaser, thus Southern interests “paid the freight.”
If that is true then why weren't the goods brought to the Southern consumers through Southern ports? Why would they sit still for having the goods brought to New York, landed, taxed, reloaded, and then brought to Southern ports. Were they dense? Or just had no concept of money?
Why didn’t the South trade its agricultural goods with the North in exhange for manufactured goods? Two reasons: 1) There wasn’t much of a market for Southern goods in the North, as the North didn’t much need the South’s agricultural goods; 2) The profitable market that was available to Southern exporters (i.e., Europe) demanded a quid pro quo for the sale of its own goods (the fact that, at that time, European manufactured goods were superior and more numerous than much of what was manufactured in the North was just an added incentive, though the South did also buy Northern goods).
Hmmm. Here's a radical thought. Instead of a barter economy why not invent something to be used instead. You could make it out of, I don't know, gold or silver or something. Then instead of going to the store and whipping out a bale of cotton to pay for your manufactured goods you could use these metal things. We could call it...money! How about that, think it might work?
We're not talking middle ages here. Cotton growers weren't dense. Why should they take on the risks of getting cotton overseas when they could sell it to someone who would take the risk for them. It was a pretty advanced economy, with insurance and middlemen and finance sources and everything. Growers sold to brokers who sold to exporters who sent it abroad. And then they took that funny metal stuff (money I think it was called?) and bought what they wanted, be it manufactured goods or slaves or land or whatever. And that money stuff was just as good as in the North as it was in the South.
Why didn’t the North import many goods from Europe? Because the North, in developing its manufacturing capacity, was in competition with Europe for those same manufactured goods. It’s called protectionism.
And it hit North and South equally. But you would have us believe that Southerners really, really wanted to pay more for their goods than the Northerners did. And you call me dense.
Your question as to what the South demanded as far as trade goods from Europe that it couldn’t get from Northern factories is a red herring posit, and, if you were honest, you’d admit it.
No, it's a legitimate question which you are incapable of answering because none of your Southron myths fit the question. You can't answer it because you have absolutely no idea. And if you tried to answer then you'd have to stop and think "Just what the heck DID they import anyway?" So take a swing at it. The South exported millions of dollars in cotton. According to you Europe demanded quid pro quo and a balance of trade. So in your world a dollar of cotton had to result in a dollar of imports. So just what the hell were they buying? Never mind the fact that none of it was going to their ports, what did they consume?
Even Northern newspapers admitted that the South seceded because of economics, as the “Boston Transcript” published in March, 1861 (paraphrased): “It is obvious the Southern states seceded for commercial ndependence...based on free trade
Even Southerners admitted that the South left over slavery, as Henry Benning, Georgia representative to the Virginia secession convention, said: "What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken."
Let’s talk about railroads.
Yes let's, and your claim that federal funds subsidized Northern railroads. I've noticed that you haven't been able to answer that, to come up with a single railroad that was subsidized with federal funds in the North or any railroad denied such subsidies in the South. Not even the Illinois Central. The best you can come up with is the transcontinental railroad, a post-rebellion initiative. So come on, ought-six. You made the claim, let's see your evidence. You claimed that the federal government was taking all that money, stealing all that money from the South and spending it on Northern railroads and infrastructure. Well, what? Which railroads? What infrastructure? You can't come up with any ideas of what manufactured goods the South was importing, can you at least back up your claim on the railroads and infrastructure? Any of it?
It is well known that you are wholly and fauningly enthlralled by and with Abraham Lincoln.
And it is also well known that you loath the man. That no lie is too big, no tale too wild, no myth too outrageous for you to repeat if it makes Lincoln look bad. You will, literally, believe anything
!!! South paid 80% of the tariffs? Sounds good to you. Spending all the money on Northern railroads? What the heck, why not? Never mind the fact that you cannot provide anything to support your wild-ass claims. You don't need any, we're expected to take your word as gospel simply because the great and wonderful ought-six said it was true.
Prior to Lincoln the United States was a voluntary association of individual states, states which retained their various powers and authorities save for a few very limited and restrictive powers granted by them to a federal government. Lincoln never agreed with that concept; rather, he was an advocate of Henry Clay’s idea of a strong federal government at the expense of the sovereignty of the states. Lincoln is responsible for — because he set it in motion — the ubiquitous, all-encroaching, ever-restrictive, freedom-destroying leviathan that we know today as the federal government: The Founding Fathers NEVER intended, or expected, their beautiful dream of self-determination to morph into this monstrosity. FDR took the baton from Lincoln and ran with it, only to hand it off to LBJ. The final leg of that relay, which will spell the death knell of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave, could be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if either should — God forbid — ever ascend to the presidency.
All because you say so, huh? That's the story of your posts, something is correct because you say it is.
A very interesting book on Lincoln is Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln.” You probably won’t like it.
I've read it. I love good fiction, and while I wouldn't classify Tommy's screed as 'good fiction' it did have it's amusing moments.
Overgeneralization. But then, you do that all the time. Quote one guy and then say he accounts for everybody.
We've been over this before. You want me to quote you the Texas secession declaration again, with its statement of causes? I analyzed it for you before -- slavery figured in the reasons for separation, but so did a number of other motives. We've discussed them all.
How about South Carolina's call? You've seen that before, too, but you continue to insist "it was all about slavery" -- the Red historians' propaganda cry. Slothful induction is what we have here, and bad faith in argument.
Your tautological table-pounding for Unionist propaganda claims won't persuade anyone who knows how to read.
And you have some bad bedfellows, in those Marxist historians, Eric Foner and James MacPherson. But you never wonder whose work you're doing for them -- for them and their patron, "Bubba" Clinton.
"Bubba" Clinton. Slick Willie hisself. For someone who doesn't like the South or Southerners, you sure don't mind sleeping with one of the worst examples, do you?