Posted on 09/06/2021 9:14:41 PM PDT by RandFan
What I hear you saying is "It's all very complicated, but take my word for it, the people producing nearly 3/4ths of the export value were not paying the bulk of taxes on imports."
What I am saying is "No, it's not complex. It's quite simple. Those producing 3/4ths of the value of exports are paying both directly and indirectly, 3/4ths of the import taxes.
It's the same horse, just different ends.
The end of the frontier, industrialization, modernization and the increase of population changed that. There is no way that we could have the economy that we have today and the government that we had in 1850. Nor is it necessarily the case that the successor states that followed the union would have things better than we have today.
Your argument may argue positively for "mercantilism", but it does not address the fact that the relationship between the Federal government and the states was changed through an extra-constitutional process that smells strongly like dictatorship. It is one thing for the people to have chosen to change the relationship, and it is quite another for it to be imposed on them by the power structure of Washington DC.
Even now they are trying to impose socialism on us against our will, and whether it turns out better in the long run, as you allege a stronger central government has done, it is still being imposed by overriding the will of the people.
We "invaded" Germany and Japan. That doesn't mean we started the war.
Well, Japan invaded us, and did extensive and significant damage to our military and our people. Germany was their ally and so we went to war with both.
Whether a state could secede was the immediate issue of the war in 1861. The deeper reason for the war was the conflict over slavery that had been growing deeper and more pointed and more impassioned for a decade.
Have you noticed the shrillness lately of "masking mandates, vaccinations, "Black Lives Matter", "January 6th insurrection and so forth? Passion is manufactured when the corrupt deep state needs it to gain and hold power.
The only issue of the civil war was the right of states to leave a Union voluntarily joined, and the evidence of which I am aware overwhelmingly supports this view.
If that had been the purpose they would have built it themselves. It was built to defend the US and if you aren't part of the US, the fort isn't yours. Nor of course, did the South Carolinians or other Southerners pay the bulk of the taxes.
When you are part of a coalition with the central government claiming the responsibility for defending the coalition, it is perfectly reasonable to allow that government to work for your defense while you are part of that coalition.
After you are no longer part of that coalition, real property that is vital to your trade and/or defense reverts back to the people who continue to reside there.
And you have a long way to go to explain how the people who produced 72% of the export value while representing only 1/4th of the population, did not end up paying more than their fair share of taxes.
Certainly not. Even in 1787, if a mechanism for secession was wanted, it would have been written into the Constitution, but it wasn't so people were going to disagree about how the union might be dissolved.
Yes, 1787. My mistake. And nothing needed to be written into the constitution because everything necessary was written 11 years earlier in the Declaration of Independence. To put it into the body of the US Constitution would be redundant, because no one had forgotten it a mere 11 years later.
Furthermore, 3 states did indeed "write" it into the Constitutional record by making it part of their ratification statements. Had their statements been regarded as false, it would have provoked an outcry. The fact that it did not was the "curious case of the dog in the night." If you understand that Sherlock Holmes reference.
"Social pressure" in a South that had forbidden discussion of abolition wasn't going to happen.
Read the section of Charles Dickens "Notes on America" dealing with slavery. He said there were many well to do southern slave owners that were embarrassed by their situation and wanted out of it.
The Corwin amendment, an unsuccessful last ditch attempt at preserving the union,
To preserve the economic status quo where New York and Washington DC were getting rich off of Southern slave production and wanted to keep control of Southern economic policy to prevent the overturning of their protectionist schemes that favored the North East. And yes, they euphemistically referred to that as "Preserve the Union." A Union in which they had the upper hand and money streams from everywhere else.
would have prevented federal abolition of slavery, but it did not prevent state action.
No it would not prevent state action, and I believe states would have slowly abolished slavery over time until a preference cascade was reached, and the remainder would give it up all at the same time. I have estimated that it would have taken between 20 and 80 years for this to happen, but the economics were waning and the social opprobrium was waxing, so it would have happened when a balance was reached between the two things.
As I have repeatedly noted, what the secessionists feared is that the Republicans would build their party in the Border States and the Upper South and that this would result in abolition in those states.
With the Corwin amendment passed, it would make no difference to the states that wanted to continue it.
Like many secessionists in 1860, you seem to think that support for slavery was the bedrock of the Constitution.
The bedrock of the US Constitution did support slavery, but that's because it supported citizen rights, and slavery was regarded as a "property right" in that era.
What some would have us believe is that one piece of the constitution could be undermined because they did not like that piece, but the rest preserved. I say, and have always said, "Laws mean what they meant when they were written, not what people would have us believe later through their use of creative interpretation."
Laws should be changed by legislation, not by reinterpretation.
But no, there were guarantees to slaveowners, but as the country changed the Constitution could always be amended.
Yes it could, and that is the proper way to change the laws, but at that time, it was impossible to amend it to abolish slavery. They didn't have a large enough majority to make that happen, and they didn't even try.
States could also take action against slavery.
They could take some action against slavery, but not to the extent they did by refusing to obey federal laws, and by denying reciprocity in the privileges and immunities clause.
Slavery was part of the constitutional compact, but it wasn't an essential, unchangeable part.
The constitution is amendable. That is the proper way to change it. Throwing fits, funding militant terrorists and refusing to obey federal laws, is not the proper way to do it.
Your sympathy today. Yesterday and tomorrow you don't show much sympathy with free state workers.
I do not believe any free market labor should ever have to compete with slave labor.
The "normal course of time" could have been 50 or 75 or 100 years, or even longer.
Yes it could have been, but it would have been the proper course of action to follow in remaining consistent with our laws.
A long time ago I tried to tell Dim that certainly the South had business representatives in his so-called New York “Cabal”. And so every time he brought up the New York “barons”, he was just shooting himself in the foot. He seems to childishly believe that everyone in the NYC-Washington DC power corridor was a Northerner.
I wouldn’t say it’s childish. But it is stubborn. There’s too much invested in the belief system.
So you agree, the South started the war. Excellent progress.
If you can only hear what you want to hear, then it is hardly worth the trouble to tell you anything otherwise.
I clearly stated that Lincoln started the war, and that he did so deliberately, knowing full well that his actions would trigger it.
Even Major Anderson said as much in his letter.
You equate the antebellum south with the rape of Nanking and Nazis
You prove my point
I’ll ride with Trump
Since you were a nevertrumper please feel free to hang with bro and the rest here
We remember you
You’ve been on the wrong side here every major issue
For decades
I did not equate the historical actions. I equated your response. You label me anti-South for simply posting historical truths. Is the Holocaust museum anti-German? You won’t answer the question of course.
In the past I've noticed that people who can't adequately answer a question tend to regard it as beneath their dignity to respond. This is usually an artifice.
I am pointing out that this is the unintended consequence of your suggestion that states added by Congress should be treated differently from states that voluntarily joined originally.
So you're equating the situation enjoyed by the southern states in 1861 with slavery?
If subjugation is wrong individually, it is also wrong collectively. You cannot claim that you believe in freedom when you use force to subjugate entire populations.
He also said that interpretation was a false one.
That's a version of "Who are ya gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"
The Words of Virginia's ratification statement speak for themselves, and don't need to be interpreted by competent English speakers.
Over time I've noticed that while it's very hard to win an argument with a smart person it's pretty near impossible to win one with a stupid person. So I've given up.
What I am saying is that I understand basic economics, but not the finer points of foreign trade or currency exchange. I am trying to be modest and honest.
What I am saying is "No, it's not complex. It's quite simple.
What you are saying is that you don't understand basic economics and don't care.
Those producing 3/4ths of the value of exports are paying both directly and indirectly, 3/4ths of the import taxes.
Indirectly - I don't think so, but going into those finer points would be helpful. Directly - no, importers pay the taxes on imports. They can pass them on to consumers, but exporters don't pay taxes on imports.
It's the same horse, just different ends.
It's a big fickin horse and a lot of money circulates inside of it. Money changes hands and once you spend it you don't have a claim to it.
Your argument may argue positively for "mercantilism"
Mercantilism was a 16th century belief or system that sought to maximize exports over imports and increase supplies of precious metals. It's used pejoratively today to refer to deviations from strict laissez-faire, but all government practice protectionism of one sort or another. I don't see what any of this has to do with my point, though. We don't live in an 18th or 19th century world. Government today is bound to differ from what it was like in 1800 or 1850.
Well, Japan invaded us, and did extensive and significant damage to our military and our people. Germany was their ally and so we went to war with both.
Japan attacked us. The rebels attacked Fort Sumter (and a lot of other US property. Germany declared war on us so we felt free to "invade" their country.
Passion is manufactured when the corrupt deep state needs it to gain and hold power.
Are you seriously comparing slavery to COVID fears and paranoia about January 6th? People got excited about slavery, but there was a lot there to get excited about.
After you are no longer part of that coalition, real property that is vital to your trade and/or defense reverts back to the people who continue to reside there.
So, the right of necessity? Lawyers would probably disagree with you there. Committments you make as part of a nation can't simply be walked away from.
Read the section of Charles Dickens "Notes on America" dealing with slavery. He said there were many well to do southern slave owners that were embarrassed by their situation and wanted out of it.
Dickens went to America in 1842. He never got South of Virginia and the planters told him what they thought he wanted to hear.
I'm not feeling great now. Maybe I'll come back to this response later. Maybe I won't. It does seem a little pointless, since you are determined to ignore anything that conflicts with your opinion.
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.