Replies

From CONTINENTAL MONTHLY

The cotton States have mostly been the advocates of 'free trade,' some of them tenaciously so.

[the cotton states perpetuated slavery] through prostration of the Democratic principle, it may not be amiss to refer to the contemplated management of its politico-economic interests. These were to be built up, of course; but not through a system of diversified industry; for free trade, as is well known, would have the effect to prostrate what little manufacturing had been commenced in the South, and a perpetual bar to the success of future undertakings. .

Just like today.

It was believed that the foul elements North and South, and the illicit traders of the world beside, could be brought together in the business of free trade and smuggling.

NAFTA and Mexican drug cartels

The immense frontier would render it impossible for the Northern States to protect themselves to much extent from illicit trade,

Just like today.

through any preventive service possible to be adopted. The Mexican frontier would be entirely helpless.

Just like today.

Thus reasoned Secesh. This was to have been the basis of competition with Northern mechanism. The reasonings of the conspirators were consistent with the merits and morals of the conspiracy. They calculated upon the active coöperation of the mercenary in the North, and actually believed that the temptation to gain would prove predominant over any efforts the Northern Government could make to protect its revenue policy. They boldly ventured upon the assumption that the influences of illicit traffic would soon become too strong to be resisted, and that in this manner, in conjunction with the agency of 'King Cotton,' the commerce of the North would be transferred to the South.

Now substitute China for the South, and you have a description of today's world under "free trade" as identified in 1862 as the cause of the Civil War.

You really need to keep your fantasies straight I can’t correct them all.

The South often objected to a TARIFF never the absence of a tariff. One of the arguments the defenders of the Slavers around here often float around here was that the War was precipitated by TARIFF policy never the absence of a tariff (free trade). The War came because the Slavers feared for slavery. There was no other reason.

At one time (during the “nullification” crisis in the 1830s) Andy Jackson threatened to hang South Carolina officials if they interfered with the tariff collection in Charleston. Subsequently Congress reduced the rates in the Tariff of Abominations to which they were objecting.

The South NEVER wanted higher tariffs. Once again you are looking through the telescope from the wrong end. There was no attempt to build Southern industry behind tariff walls. Or Southern opposition to free trade.

In addition, free trade was never a policy of our government until the 20th century and even then it is only quasi free trade.

The other babbling in the post is so nonsensical that between the illiteracy and bankrupt ideas I don’t even know what point you are trying to make.