Posted on 12/28/2023 7:26:59 AM PST by Fiji Hill
Indirectly. They were taxing the goods their cotton bought in Europe, and making the price of steel artificially high due to protectionist laws put in place by the Northern controlled congress.
The North was milking the South on both ends. The South was producing 72% of the total tax revenue for the Nation. The North, with it's four times larger population was only producing 28% of the tax money necessary to run Washington DC.
And they liked it that way.
Ask Brandon. He was there.
Yeah, they made up the fact that the North was controlling 700 million per year in Southern trade, keeping the lions share of that money, and wanting that arrangement to continue when the South wanted out of it.
People will lie. Money tells the truth. The North invaded the South to keep control of that money. They didn't care about the slaves, or they would not have passed the Corwin Amendment.
GOD bless the brave Jacksonian Southern Unionists!
We've all been taught this myth, but the Corwin Amendment proves it is incorrect. In March of 1861, the Republican controlled congress voted by over a 2/3rds margin in the House and Senate to pass this permanent slavery amendment to the Constitution.
So slavery was freely handed to the Southern states in perpetuity if they would just come back into the Union.
And *THAT* is why the war wasn't really about slavery. The North offered it as a deal, and the South didn't take it. If slavery was the issue, the North would not have offered it, and the South would have quickly taken it.
Clearly permanently legal slavery didn't really mean anything to either side.
Treason meant more to the Confederacy.
A blockade would have involved U.S. Navy ships steaming outside Japanese harbors physically preventing ships from entering or leaving.
You do tend to be precise.
Haley’s inability to field this question intelligently reflects poorly on her as a candidate.
US presidents should have a firm grasp on essential issues in American history. Given South Carolina’s role in causing the CW, her ignorance on this issue makes you wonder if children brought up by non-Americans might not really get American history and everything it means with depth or nuance.
Candidates should expect gotcha questions, should think on their feet, and be able to deliver unembarassing answers. With a solid answer she could have made this question into a winner (in which case we’d never have heard about this...).
I have always thought that Trump had a lot in common with Andrew Jackson, but I imagine he has more in common with Teddy Roosevelt.
Well, Lincoln ordering Federal ships to attack them first had more to do with it.
Did you know about that?
How did they do that?
The propaganda spread before the war was that slavery would "expand." The reality was that this was impossible. You could not grow any cash crops that used large numbers of slaves in any of the territories. It simply could not happen, yet people kept trying to terrify people with the idea that the territories would be taken over by slavery.
It was just a lie told for political gain to maintain Northern control of the Congress, because through that control they had created a money stream from Southern pockets into Northern pockets, so of course they would lie to keep those money streams flowing.
No, TR was a flaming Liberal.
How did the South precipitate the war?
I take it you haven't read the Corwin Amendment, through which, Lincoln and his Republicans offered the south permanent slavery?
And you conspicuously leave Virginia out of your list of causes of secession. Why is that? Because it doesn't fit your narrative?
When your own founding document, the Declaration of Independence, specifically says that all states have a right to leave, it isn't "treason" when some chose to do so. It is the exercising of a fundamental right granted by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.
Read the post you’re replying to for the answer to your question. The 1857 Dred Scott decision by the Dim majority SCOTUS took the argument away from the state level to the federal level.
We have been over this again and again, and again, but ok. The Confederacy FORBADE States from leaving in thier own Constitution. Texas WOULD NOT have stayed in the Confederacy for long.
You are dodging the question. What did the South do to force a one size fits all on the nation?
Yeah? What part? It's been a long time since I looked at the Confederate constitution, but when I did, you could clearly see it was modeled quite a lot after the US Constitution.
I have no recollection of them forbidding states from leaving, but if they did, it was a more clear indication that states could not do it than anything said in the US Constitution.
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.