Replies

So, now we’re arguing about the context of your statement that “nobody gave a shi*t about slavery”. When I proved, by citing multiple official texts, that the south DID “give a sh*t about slavery”, you claimed that you meant to say nobody in the north gave a sh*t about slavery. The only answer I can give to that is “No sh*t, Sherlock”. To reiterate, for the nth time, the North went to war the preserve the Union. They did not go to war regarding slavery in any way. Yet, you persist in pointing out this obvious fact (Corwin Amendment!, Boston newspaper editorial! Some guy overheard in a bar in Montpelier!) as if this proves the Southern secession (and the war) was not about slavery. The reason the southern states seceded (maintain slavery in the existing states, expand slavery into the territories, and enforce the fugitive slave act) were their reasons, and the opinion of anybody in the North was immaterial to those reasons – which they stated in the Articles of Secession, in case you’ve forgotten.

It’s somewhat amusing how you go from arguing that the 4 states who listed slavery as their reason for seceding were; a) a teeny-tiny minority to arguing that “in a Democratic Republic, it takes over 50% to have any significance.”. So, my question to you, it when was a vote taken by the Confederacy on whether or not Slavery was the reason for secession? I don’t remember any such vote being taken. I mean, did all the states get together in a Reasons for Secession Convention and vote on the reasons? Did they say, only 4 of you voted for slavery being the reason. Since that’s less than 50% you’re wrong and that’s not your reason? All levity aside, those 4 states did explicitly state that protection of slavery (in all its parts) was the reason for their secession, and they obviously considered it important. Are we to ignore them because they were less than 50%? By that logic (using that word loosely), the majority of the states not voting for secession would be free to totally ignore the position of those states voting for secession, since they were less than 50% of the total of states.

When I asked why the South felt the need to hide their “real” reasons for seceding behind the blather of slavery, you responded as follows: “You are going to move 230 million dollars per year out of the pockets of the most powerful people in America. Do you think bringing their attention to this fact is helpful or unhelpful to your efforts to get that money?” Then, you followed by stating: “Of course, anyone thinking that the top businessmen in America wouldn’t notice a serious threat to their pocket book is just a fool.”. This whole line of logic (again, using the term extremely loosely) confuses me. You’re saying that the Articles of Secession were a cynical attempt to hide what was basically an attempt to steal (I’m sorry. You said “screw them over financially”) the United States out of $230 Million. Then you followed up by saying that of course it wasn’t fooling anybody. Do you have such a poor opinion of the Southerners who seceded? You’re always comparing them to the Patriots of 1776. We went a long way from “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor” to “We’re going to lie about how we’re screwing them out of money, but we’re going to do it so incompetently that everyone will see through it.” And, I notice that you have never answered the question of why they thought that using slavery as an excuse would play better with Western Europe than tariffs? I personally have a better opinion of the honesty and honor of the secessionists

you persist in pointing out this obvious fact (Corwin Amendment!, Boston newspaper editorial! Some guy overheard in a bar in Montpelier!) as if this proves the Southern secession (and the war) was not about slavery.

Yes, it pretty much does. Any effort to grant states unlimited rights to have slavery pretty much means that the North was *NOT* fighting over the issue of slavery.

I don’t remember any such vote being taken.

The votes in the Secession conventions were about leaving the Union. People voted in favor of it.

You’re saying that the Articles of Secession were a cynical attempt to hide what was basically an attempt to steal (I’m sorry. You said “screw them over financially”) the United States out of $230 Million.

Mostly correct. Your only mistake is in asserting the Confederates were stealing from the Northern states. The reality was the other way around. The Confederates were just trying to get back their money, while the Northern power blocks insisted on keeping it.

The South produced between 73-85% (depending on what source you consult) of all the European trade with the US. Almost all of it came back through New York, where the combined total between New York and Washington DC exceeded the value that the Southerners actually received for producing the products! New York and Washington DC were making more off of slavery than were the people running it!

Then you followed up by saying that of course it wasn’t fooling anybody.

It wasn't fooling anyone in economic power in the North. They clearly knew what the game was, but it was certainly fooling ignorant and simpleminded yahoos that thought the issue really was slavery, and it is still fooling modern ignorant and simpleminded yahoos that *still* think the war had something to do with slavery! :)

Here is what the war was about.

This map is a map of tariff collections, but it represents where all the *MONEY* was coming into the nation most of which was produced by *SLAVERY* in the South.

The *MONEY* represented by that pile of coins on New York, Boston and Washington DC, is what the war was fought about.

If the South had gotten independence, *MOST* of that money pile would be transferred to Southern port cities like Charleston.

You've been *LIED* to my FRiend. It always was about the *MONEY*.

Team Cuda to DiogenesLamp: "It’s somewhat amusing how you go from arguing that the 4 states who listed slavery as their reason for seceding were; a) a teeny-tiny minority to arguing that 'in a Democratic Republic, it takes over 50% to have any significance.'. "

Just so we're clear on this, of the first seven seceding States, only Florida and Louisiana produced no "Reasons for Secession" document.
The other five -- SC, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia & Texas -- all gave us something.
Robert Rhett & Alexander Stephens also delivered noteworthy explanations.

Of the seven documents, all detailed slavery as a major reason, and for some it was the only reason.

None of the seven documents listed "money flows from Europe" or "Northeastern power brokers".
None complained about New York making more money off slavery than slaveholders themselves.
None provided a map showing how supposedly all the money from Southern exports went to New York & Washington.

Some did also complain about taxes, claiming the South paid the most while the North got most of the benefit.
But that's only possibly true if by "the South" you mean everyone South of Massachusetts and if by "the North" you mean everyone North of South Carolina.

Of course, the bottom line is the nation did generally benefit from Southern exports, but not through some nefarious Republican plot.
Instead, it was because for every dollar the South exported, it also "imported" a dollar's worth of Northern products.
Further, it was Democrats, Southern & Northern, who ruled Washington almost continuously from 1801 until secession in 1861.
So Democrats passed the taxes & made whatever rules benefited New York or anyone else.
Therefore, when Southern Democrats complained about Washington taxes & spending, they were in reality complaining about their own representatives there, not Republicans.