Posted on 02/06/2003 1:37:27 PM PST by clintonbaiter
"Sherman, in his march across Georgia and up through Carolina, had sixty thousand men with him. I don't know what percentage of them were illiterate. I know there were very few men in there with a delicacy of manners that you'd expect nowadays. And the whole time he made that march, those sixty thousand men, I had not heard of one case of rape. And that is one of the finest compliments I know you can pay this country and the soldiers it produced that we did not engage in these usual horrendous things that are common in civil war. The fact that we spoke the same language is not what made us close together. In fact, in most civil wars they speak the same language, and they're very savage with each other. But somehow we didn't do that.--- Shelby Foote
Actually he isn't alone. Here is a quote from someone who was there:
"The men have behaved themselves the best I saw them either home or abroad. Every man has seemed to be on his good behavior since we entered Atlanta. The women have been dressed up waiting for our men to commence raping but they have waited in vain. There has not been a single outrage commited in this city , a circumstance that the people say they cannot say for the rebel army." -- William Dunn, surgeon, 77th Pennsylvania, September 27, 1864
The American Civil War is a wonderful example of good coming out of evil, of strength coming out of suffering. The American Civil War was where this country became this country. The Revolution got us free of England, established us an independent nation, but the Civil War was the one that decided what kind of nation we were going to be. There were a lot of bad things that went along with a lot of good things. And it's that combination of different points of view that somehow found a way to get along with each other and learn from each other and contribute each in its way to the American character that has given us our strength."By a paradox of having this dreadful thing in which we tried to tear each other to pieces, we wound up in the end with a Union that has been stronger than it was before the war started. That war settled a couple of things very strongly. One was the right to secede. That was settled. And the slavery issue was settled once and for all and probably could not have been settled any other way. There were things about that war that couldn't be settled apparently except by bloodshed."
--- Shelby Foote
Dec. 1864 Account of Destruction of Atlanta
Atlanta, Ga., Dec. 7th, 1864
To His Excellency Joseph E. Brown, Governor of Georgia:
In obedience to orders of Nov. 25, to inspect the State property in Atlanta, and the city itself, and protect the same, I have the honor to make the following report.
(snip)
There are about 250 wagons in the city on my arrival, loading with pilfered plunder; pianoes, mirrors, furniture of all kinds, iron, hides without number, and an incalculable amount of other things, very valuable at the present time. This exportation of stolen property have been going on ever since the place had been abandoned by the enemy. Bushwhackers, robbers and deserters, and citizens from the surrounding country for a distance of fifty miles have been engaged in this dirty work.
Many of the finest houses, mysteriously left unburned, are filled with the finest furniture, carpets, pianoes, mirrors, etc., and occupied by parties who six months ago lived in humble style. About fifty families remained during the occupancy of the city by the enemy, and about the same number have returned since its abandonment. From two to three thousand dead carcasses of animals remain in the city limits.
Horses were turned loose in the cemetery to graze upon the grass and shrubbery. The ornaments of graves, such as marble lambs, miniature statuary, souvenirs of departed little ones are broke and scattered abroad. The crowning act of all their wickedness and villiany was committed by our ungodly for in removing the dead from the vaults in the cemetery, and robbing the coffins of the silver name plates and tipping, and depositing their own dead in the vaults.
I have the honor to be, Respectfully,
Your obedient Servant,
W.P. Howard
Source: http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/atldestr.htm
And if it were isolated in the South, any economic analysis would show it would have died a natural death under the weight of it's own demographics. Slavery almost ended in the upper south in the early part of the century because it was becoming an economically marginal enterprise. Then came King Cotton and the settlement of the old southwest and a boom in the value of slaves. Slavery became the main industry of the south and the source of wealth for the ruling class. That is why the slaveocracy insisted so strongly on expansion -- even to the point of secession and war. They and Lincoln both understood that the Ponzi economy of slavery could only continue with expansion.
Charleston Mercury
February 28, 1860
Prospects of Slavery Expansion
(taken from The Causes of the Civil War by Kenneth Stampp, pp. 148-49)
The right to have [slave] property protected in the territory is not a mere abstraction without application or practical value. In the past there are instances where the people of the Southern States might have colonized and brought new slave States into the Union had the principle been recognized, and the Government, the trustee of the Southern States, exercised its appropriate powers to make good for the slaveholder the guarantees of the Constitution.... When the gold mines of California were discovered, slaveholders at the South saw that, with their command of labor, it would be easy at a moderate outlay to make fortunes digging gold. The inducements to go there were great, and there was no lack of inclination on their part. But, to make the emigration profitable, it was necessary that the [slave] property of Southern settlers should be safe, otherwise it was plainly a hazardous enterprise, neither wise nor feasible. Few were reckless enough to stake property, the accumulation of years, in a struggle with active prejudices amongst a mixed population, where for them the law was a dead letter through the hostile indifference of the General Government, whose duty it was, by the fundamental law of its existence, to afford adequate protection -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- to the property of every man, of whatever sort, without discrimination. Had the people of the Southern States been satisfied they would have received fair play and equal protection at the hands of the Government, they would have gone to California with their slaves.... California would now have been a Slave State in the Union....
What has been the policy pursued in Kansas? Has the territory had a fair chance of becoming a Slave State? Has the principle of equal protection to slave property been carried out by the Government there in any of its departments? On the contrary, has not every appliance been used to thwart the South and expel or prohibit her sons from colonizing there? ... In our opinion, had the principle of equal protection to Southern men and Southern property been rigorously observed by the General Government, both California and Kansas would undoubtedly have come into the Union as Slave States. The South lost those States for the lack of proper assertion of this great principle....
New Mexico, it is asserted, is too barren and arid for Southern occupation and settlement.... Now, New Mexico ... teems with mineral resources.... There is no vocation in the world in which slavery can be more useful and profitable than in mining.... [Is] it wise, in our present condition of ignorance of the resources of New Mexico, to jump to the conclusion that the South can have no interest in its territories, and therefore shall waive or abandon her right of colonizing them? ...
We frequently talk of the future glories of our republican destiny on the continent, and of the spread of our civilization and free institutions over Mexico and the Tropics. Already we have absorbed two of her States, Texas and California. Is it expected that our onward march is to stop here? Is it not more probable and more philosophic to suppose that, as in the past, so in the future, the Anglo-Saxon race will, in the course of years, occupy and absorb the whole of that splendid but ill-peopled country, and to remove by gradual process, before them, the worthless mongrel races that now inhabit and curse the land? And in the accomplishment of this destiny is there a Southern man so bold as to say, the people of the South with their slave property are to consent to total exclusion ...? Our people will never sit still and see themselves excluded from all expansion, to please the North.
Source: http://www.ket.org/civilwar/causes4.html
Walt's going to be most disappointed when he finds that you hate me worse than him. LOL
He constantly lies about what documents and court cases say. It's a standard tactic of his. Check his sources. When he says a letter "proves" this or that, go to the source and see. When he says a court case "proves" this or that, go to the source and see. Most of the time he's wrong, completely wrong, and the documents he quotes often prove the opposite of what he claims, or at best don't even apply at all.
Walt quotes real people from the time that are central to these issues and doesn't add words to their quotes, not like GOPCapitalist who quotes Marx, who ain't got nuthin' to do with nuthin', and adds words to Marx' quotes besides. It's hard to go wrong when you use actual quotes without changing them like Walt does.
GOPCapitalist wasn't happy with the actual quote so he said paraphrasing: "substitute this word for that word and that word for this word" to better meet his agenda. That's falsification.
GOP used the word himself in descriptive discourse in a followup, and your irrational mind fixated on that, and substituted it for the actual quote. A perfect example of your irrational thought processes.
He flat out said to substitute different words for what was actually in the quote. That's falsification.
I only suggested drug use to be kind and offer a public excuse for your irrational behavior that would not entail some sort of insanity on your part.
You're a false accusor like most neo-Confederates are. You proved it with your drug charge against me and called me a Communist.
As to the Marx support, if you don't want people thinking you're a Marxist, don't engage in apologetics on Karl's behalf.
I repeatedly said that I don't read Marx. GOPCapitalist falsified Marx' quote. I pointed that out. Poiniting out a falsification doesn't mean that the pointer-outer supports the person that made the quote and this is further evidence that you neo-Confederates will accuse anyone of anything falsely.
A grain of salt is good to take with everything if you think about it. Unless you're on a salt-free diet that is. BTW, You're false accusations against me of racism and slavery loving is further evidence that neo-unionists are false accusers and will just make up crazy things to fit their agenda and therefore their excuses for Lincoln should be taken with a grain of salt - LOL.
You admitted that you think blacks should've stayed under slavery instead of the freedom they achieved with the 13th amendment. I accused you of nothing that you didn't admit to. I had you pegged from the beginning. But that's not difficult with you neo-Confederates.
That is not all Lincoln conveyed to Weed. As Seward's letter of December 26, 1861 reports, Weed also told Seward of additional instructions on the proposal. Seward wrote this in his letter to The Lincoln, stating "He gave me verbally the substance of the suggestion you proposed for the consideration of the Republican members" in addition to the paper.
Seward also wrote that "I offered three propositions which seemed to me to cover the ground of the suggestion made by you through Mr Weed as I understood it" and immediately listed the slavery amendment.
Nowhere was there any suggestion that a constitutional amendment of any sort, much less one supporting slavery, be proposed nor did he support the idea.
Much to the contrary. Seward's letter specifically says that Weed conveyed the message from Lincoln on the amendment verbally.
President-elect Lincoln went on to say, "As to fugitive slaves, District of Columbia, slave trade among the slave states, and whatever springs of necessity from the fact that the institution is among us, I care but little..." That doesn't sound like a man up to his armpits in planning the Constitutional amendment to me.
To the contrary. He was setting the parameters for Seward to work with. At the time, Lincoln was not in the middle of it all because he was acting over some distance. He got into the middle of it all when he came to Washington though.
But there is no documentary evidence of the meeting
Yes there is. If the newspapers reported a meeting took place on it, that itself is documentation of the meeting. It's also a matter of history. Here's an excerpt I recently found on it:
"Corwin had gone over the matter [the amendment] with Lincoln after his arrival, and they decided to offer the constitutinal Amendment concocted by the Committee of Thirty-three, slightly revised. This would be their olive branch, and they expected their party to back the move." - Roy F. Nichols, "The Disruption of American Democracy" p. 484
and no real indication that Lincoln was involved in planning the Amendment.
He met with Corwin on it when he got to Washington and that meeting resulted in a decision to go forward with the final language. He also told Weed of it back in December, who then instructed Seward to propose it. Seward did so and informed The Lincoln that his request had been carried out in the committee of thirteen. The New York Tribune also reported that he was urging congressmen to vote for it two days before it passed. I'd say he was involved in the planning of the amendment from its very earliest stages to its completion.
Eyewitness? It looks like Mr. Adams is reporting what he heard and not what he witnessed.
No, eyewitness is correct. Adams was the son of Charles Francis Adams, the congressman who first proposed the House version of the amendment in committee. His father was in the center of the push for it, giving him an eyewitness view to its passage. It is likely that he knew of The Lincoln's support through his father, who is by all reasonable standards a credible source of that information. That, and the account is corroborated in the New York Tribune, which reported that The Lincoln was urging them to vote for the measure.
You said you prefer slavery for them over the freedom they achieved with the 13th amendment.
Mostly a result of the disaster in race relations caused by the way 'reconstruction' was carried out. If it had not happened that way, just think how much less suffering there would have been over those many decades.
You're dead wrong. Freedom is better for blacks than slavery.
LOL - Your irrational thought processes have yet again led you to a false conclusion about my beliefs that allows your deranged mind to desperately cling to it's manufactured reality. I read they have a number of new medications that might help someone with your "cognitive disabilities". You should enquire with your physician regarding possible treatment.
You can't deny what I said because you admitted to it.
No you didn't. You just asserted it to be so without ever once bothering to demonstrate it. I responded by noting that Marx used the terms "proletariat" and "working class" interchangably - a fact that you admittedly did not know since you have never read anything by Marx. For any reasonable person, that would have been enough to settle their confusion. But you are not reasonable, hence you continue spouting that same old line despite its lack of any merit whatsoever. Oh well, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
There you go, add another 35 years to the right theory that people still don't accept. There was propaganda in the 1700s and 1800s too.
And you know this how?
By the fact that they changed their position once they fell behind industrially.
I ask because absolutely no reason exists in the record of those speeches themselves to indicate anything of the sort.
Look at Calhoun's speeches. Pro-tariffs until the South fell behind industrially, then anti-tariffs.
Then again, I suppose your statement comes from the same mind reading capabilities that allowed you to discover those bible code rantings that identify America as the "chosen country" as well.
Bible codes don't exist. The fact that you falsely accuse me of saying this proves that you neo-Confederates are false accusors. Bible prophecy does exist and we are God's country.
To the contrary. Capitalism got them ahead agriculturally because that is where they had comparative advantages.
No more than the North. Some of the best farmland is in Illinois and Indiana. Yet we industrialized. The difference was slavery.
It would have been STUPID of them to industrialize in markets where they were comparatively disadvantaged.
Seeing how they got beat in the war, it would've been smart for them to not be one-dimensional economically.
We've been over this before, indicating to me that you have no interest in understanding the economics of the time. Only a habitually dishonest individual would behave in the manner you do.
Only a habitual reality-denier like you can't see that slavery kept the South down industrially.
Low, restrained revenue tariffs not unlike the 1857 one.
Or the high ones before 1820 that the South supported?
To the contrary. An economy need not be exclusively one-dimensional, but the law of comparative advantages dictates that in order to achieve the most, it should shift its production over to that area in which it has the comparative advantage. For the south, that meant agriculture.
But it makes them weak militarily and economically eventually. So you're wrong.
A major reason for the war coming about was that the south was hurt by a redistributive economic policy designed to enrich the industrialists.
Because they had no industry because of slavery. Plus, the tariffs were protectionist, not redistributive.
To combat the south's dissent, those industrialists invaded, on which grounds you irrationally conclude the south's "error" to have been proven since that invasion eventually worked. Such reasoning is circular and therefore irrational.
If the South would've gotten rid of slavery and industrialized, they would not have been militarily weak.
In its own respective sectors it certainly has. That is because markets, such as oil refining, arose and because laws, such as right to work, attracted companies.
And because slavery has ended.
In financial ability, they were competing effectively with the North in 1860.
All their money was concentrated in a few plantation owners hands.
The south made 75% of the entire nation's exports during that period. It was a different kind of economic activity than the north's, but it financially matched and in some cases surpassed anything the north had, and all that despite the south's lower population. If you doubt me, go make your case that an economy that is outperforming another by 3 to 1 in exports cannot compete with that other economy. Just don't whine to me when they laugh at you and call you an idiot.
They were exporting a raw material worked by slaves. This will not keep them viable for long, as we saw when they got beat in the war.
To the contrary. Capitalism got them ahead agriculturally because that is where they had comparative advantages.
Like slavery.
It would have been STUPID of them to industrialize in markets where they were comparatively disadvantaged.
Slavery made them disadvantaged industrially as we saw with Illinois and Indiana, who industrialized in spite of having an agricultural advantage.
We've been over this before, indicating to me that you have no interest in understanding the economics of the time. Only a habitually dishonest individual would behave in the manner you do.
Only a habitual reality-denier can't see that slavery kept the South down industrially.
But not export-oriented deep sea ports.
It doesn't matter. Shipping is shipping, not manufacturing. Whether the workers work in rail or in a port, they are not manufacturing and the North had to have it's shippers too, so you can't use that as an excuse as to why the South didn't industrialize until slavery ended.
Exactly, and you are proving my point precisely. That market type X works for one region does not mean it works for all others, be it ports and railroads or agriculture and manufacturing.
But the North had to have shippers also and about same percentage of workers would be tied up in it. So you can't blame shipping for the South's lack of industrialization.
You've just proven my point even further. When a person operates a farm or a factory, is his purpose also not the same? Is it not to make money?
A farmer using slaves to pick cotton is not modernizing like a manufacturer has to.
You admit that putting a port where geography makes a railroad more effective is unwise and vice versa. Why can't you admit the same for other market activities? For the very same reasons, putting a factory where geography makes a farm more effective is also unwise.
Geography didn't make the farm more effective in the South, slavery did. Illinois and Indiana prove this because in spite of having an agricultural advantage, they still industrialized. Slavery was the difference.
Repeat it all you like and flap your arms while you are at it. The repeating will not make it so though, and the arm flapping will not give you flight. Like it or not, the south's economy was a result of market-dictated comparative advantages. Slavery was but the labor attribute - an unfortunate and immoral one - but still just the labor attribute.
Illinois and Indiana prove you wrong because in spite of having an agricultural advantage, they still industrialized. Slavery was the differnce.
Show where such an industry has ever been "killed" by dumping resulting in capture.
Everyone has been smart enough not to let it happen. Until now, that is.
You are not reading what I post. Lower prices from abroad adjust the world price and lead to decreased domestic production. That does not mean domestic production will disappear.
But it may go down to the point that we can't defend ourselves.
Then why not buy back the domestic mills? and they may not be there in time of war.
Once you close the mills down and sell them and sell the machinery to foreigners, it would take too long to get enough capacity back up to save ourselves in case of attack.
So all the steel producers everywhere in the world are going to get together and gang up on us all at once?
Ezekial 38 makes it look that way.
That's a non-sequitur. Nothing exists to prevent us from increasing domestic production, or from buying at a slightly higher price from another steel supplier who is not our enemy.
You're putting a lot of faith in the more socialist countries of the world. The time it takes to rebuild our steel capacity would prevent us from saving ourselves in case of attack if our capacity got down too low.
As evidenced by your rantings here and on FR, no. You don't.
You don't if you think that slavery didn't hurt the South industrially.
Protect it from what?
Dumping.
Why can't we simply increase that capacity if needed, as will happen anyway whenever the market demands it?
Not in time to save ourselves if it gets too low.
How can they gouge us later if the second they quit dumping and start "gouging," the market will cause domestic steel to go back into production?
It takes too long.
To use an analogy, let us suppose that we both own gas stations across the street from each other - the only two in town, both charging about 1.50 a gallon. Now suppose I can afford to cut my prices to 75 cents a gallon, seize the entire market, and it puts you out of business since you can't sustain the losses. What do you think would happen if I then raised my prices to 5 dollars a gallon? Do you seriously think that the poor people of the town would be stuck forever having to pay me that outrageous price for gasoline? Of course not! Either you would reopen your station or somebody else, realizing there was money to be made by undercutting my price and monopoly, would come along and do the same. As soon as that happens, I'll have to cut my prices to compete and we'll both be back at 1.50 a gallon - exactly where we started. For that reason, my attempts to dump and then gouge the local gas market will have been in vain. Since there are no significant barriers to entry at home absent of the government internally blocking it by statute, nothing exists to stop the exact same thing from happening.
Changing a price on a sign takes a few minutes. Rebuilding steel capacity would take years.
Not if there's a demand for steel.
There wouldn't be demand for domestic production until we were attacked, and then it would take too long to get capacity back up to the level to save ourselves.
When shortages come along, markets are induced to build their equipment faster. To use another analogy, consider what happens with road construction projects. Typically they progress slowly when they are expanding an existing road etc. But notice what happens when an unplanned incident occurs, such as a pillar being hit underneath a major bridge on the interstate? That pillar may have taken weeks to put there initially when little reason or purpose existed to build it at an exceptionally fast rate. But when the existing bridge is shut down because of it causing major problems in the heavy traffic that normally crosses it, they send an all night crew and make the repairs a top priority. Suddenly what once took weeks without demand to finish is done in a day or two under heavy demand.
You're willing to bet your life and your country that we could get capacity back up to meet our needs in case of attack. That's stupid.
So Spain, Poland, Italy, and Australia are our enemies now as well?
I consider Australia part of the UK. China, Russia, Germany, France, French Canada (maybe), Mexico (maybe), Brazil, the Arab nations, etc. would possibly be against us at once. Spain, Poland and Italy being too close to the enemy powerhouses and sharing a currency with our enemies would not try to stop them.
Funny, cause I thought they were all with us.
Those are weak countries you named.
In fact, I thought the Euro count as of yesterday was 18 with us and only 3 against us.
Against Iraq. This war with Iraq is not Hamongog. Hamongog will be the most of the world against us on our soil. You are biblically illiterate.
Oh. So this is your bible code thingy.
You are a liar. I said there is no such thing as bible codes and you know it. It's biblical prophesy. You don't believe in biblical prophecy?
Figures. And I suppose you also buy those videos on armageddon that the lady with the big hair sells on channel 68 around 3 AM?
I've never seen her and don't know who you're talking about.
Not if there's a heavy demand to do so. Markets adjust quickly when something is in shortage meaning there is money to be made.
It would take too long to rebuild steel capacity if it got too low and we were attacked.
That it should, but I did not ask about economies of shipping because types of shipping vary widely just like types of manufacturing and types of agriculture. I asked if Colorado should have a seaport.
Whether by sea or rail, shipping is shipping and not manufacturing. You can't blame the shipping economy for the South's lack of industrialization because the North had about the same percentage of it's workforce in the shipping economy and they industriallized in spite of it. Slavery was the reason.
Yes. It does. And so do a state's economic markets. Thank you for again proving my point.
You can't blame shipping for the South's lack of industrialization because the north had about the same percentage of it's workforce involved in shipping. Slavery was the reason.
As I said, go start an orange, cotton, and sugarcane farm in Minnesota if you think so. Get back to me when you've proven that you can grow as good there as you can in Florida.
But the North does have good farmland to grow crops and yet they industrialized and the South didn't. Slavery was the difference.
In types of agriculture, the south was multidimensional.
Ag won't cut it in war.
In exporting, it was also multidimensional.
They exported slave-worked raw materials. That won't cut it in war.
Yet just because it didn't have smelly coal refineries, you assume it was inherently "bad" or "inferior." I hate to break it to ya, but that "one-dimensional" economy outpaced the industrialized and high-population north in exports by 3 to 1.
But they can't win wars unless they industrialize, and they couldn't industrialize because of slavery.
Cause in certain parts of those two states, other resources existed to give them comparative advantages in other things.
Like what? The South would've had the same if they didn't have slavery.
For the same reason, Louisiana did not just grow sugarcane. Other parts were good for cotton and cotton industries emerged in those parts respectively.
Because of slavery. If not for slavery, the South could've industrialized along with the North.
Your logic, aside from being factually flawed, is circular. The southern economy was superior in areas of trade because its economy maximized the advantages of trade. It is just plain silly to argue that they should have forgone that to avoid tariffs. As I noted previously, that makes as much sense as you burning the contents of your wallet and bank account so you can enjoy the benefits of welfare and food stamps.
If the South would've gotten rid of slavery, there would've been incentive to industrialize like Illinois and Indiana did in spite of having excellent farmland. The South liked their filthy lucre too much though.
But it will become steel production if domestic demand emerges.
But in an attack, it would take too long to save us if capacity gets too low.
But some are better suited to certain modes than another.
But it's not manufacturing and the North had about the same percentage involved in shipping as the South so you can't blame shipping for the South's lack of industrialization.
Just the same, every area of great population needs a way to make money and goods to produce. But some areas are better suited to certain types of goods than others.
Especially when they employ slavery.
Well, I suppose a few pounds of our uranium can make their entire steel industry into a glowing green wasteland for years.
And theirs ours.
Call it what you like, it is still a matter of economic fact.
It's boloney.
PROTECTIVE tariffs are.
They are meant to protect an industry from going under due to foreign competition or dumping.
And exactly what do you think that means? To protect it means to pass a law that prevents any domestic competition from competing with that industry.
No, foreign competition.
When this is done, the home market shifts entirely to the protected industry at a higher price than before. That protected industry accordingly recieves reciepts it would not have previously - they are redistributed to it.
And people are employed in that industry and capacity is kept.
Class warfare? Where?
Saying tariffs are meant to make people rich. They are meant to protect industry.
The only liberal notions in this debate are coming straight from you. Your mercantilist rants in defense of protection sound like something straight out of the AFL-CIO playbook. Are they?
The AFL-CIO would want to protect every industry. I think we should protect vital war industries if it be necessary.
The polls don't show so, and in fact the only people who do "think" that are the democrats and the media. But you and I both know they are perpetrating a fraud when they say so in order that they may achieve their leftist political agenda of tax and spend.
Yes, and people want their high rates and their nanny government. Give the people a choice between low taxes and a cut in government services, or high progressive tax rates and nanny government, and they choose nanny government to our dismay even though they don't realize that they are only hurting themselves.
And had they done it for revenue purposes, they would have been correct. But they did not do that. They enacted a protectionist tariff for explicitly protectionist reasons, not revenue ones. Lincoln himself said so.
The South supported these tariff policies until they fell behind industrially because of slavery.
Because they thought they could get away with it by shifting the economic harm they did onto the south while reaping the redistributionist benefits of the tariff for themselves.
If the South would've industrialized, it would not have hurt them worse, but they preferred slavery over industrialization.
Why do you think the leftists propose tax hikes right now even though they are bad for the economy as a whole? They do it because they think they can make somebody else pay for it (the middle class and upper class) while reaping the "benefits" (increased government spending) for themselves.
The purpose of protective tariffs was to protect industry to make a stronger nation. The South supported this policy until slavery got them behind industrially.
You are intentionally padding the mean. That is a dishonest and deceptive statistical tactic.
You are ignoring 61 years of history. That's denying reality.
No. I am calling you on a dishonest statistical tactic. You are padding the mean.
You are ignoring 61 years of history. You neo-Confederates have to do that though since truth is not on your side.
No. I want to look at an accurate portrayal of those 14 years. In order to obscure that, you arbitrarily set boundary years prior to that to provide you with 56 years of padding on your mean. If one were to look at 30 years of tariff policy, for example, and attempt to describe it, that must be done accurately.
The South supported high tariffs until slavery got them behind industrially.
Suppose for this example that the tariff alternated up and down for the first 15 of those 30 years. Then suppose that the second 15 were consistently low. If you took the mean, it would suggest that the tariff alternated up and down once every 2 years. Surely you can see how that is a deceptive portrayal though, can you not? You should be able to because it is exactly what you are doing.
Like the income tax does now like I said.
The truth isn't good enough for you neo-Confederates so you have to change reality to suit your agenda and you falsified Marx' quote.
In most of those countries, the "Slaves" became the government through revolution. Mexico is a case in point. Emancipation there came in conjunction with the revolt against Spanish rule. The slave owners in the Mexican state of Texas resisted emancipation through legal subterfuges (forcing their slaves to sign life-time indentures) and continued their flouting of Mexican law by importing more slaves to the point of rebellion against Mexico.
In cases such as the French colonies, they didn't fight a war per-say --- the slaves simply rose up and in a matter of weeks killed every damn slave owner they got their hands on. (A fate that would have eventually happened in the Deep South if the demographic trends of slaves vs. free whites had continued for another few generations) New Orleans filled up with the French lucky enough to escape Haiti. The British colonies learned a lesson from that. When London ordered them to end slavery, they went along however reluctantly knowing that the British army would not protect them from their own slaves if they resisted.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Consider yourself rebutted.
Are you honestly suggesting that Texas revolted as part of some slave conspiracy? Hate to break the bubble of your fantasy world, but we revolted because an angry little tyrant named Santa Anna seized power and overthrew the Mexican Constitution. He went about dissolving, consolidating, and coercing the legislatures and government officials who objected and, in doing so, prompted half of his country into revolt. One of the revolting regions was Texas, which had been politically aligned with the opposition party. It started here when he sent his military to dissarm a frontier town of a small cannon it had used for its defense (can you say gun control?) and after Santa Ana imprisoned a Texas political leader on a peaceful visit to Mexico City to seek conciliation and restoration of representative government.
In response to the revolts around Mexico, Santa Ana raised up an army which he then sent across the Mexican countryside to enslave peasants in the service of the soldiers (in other words, he practiced exactly that which his apologists claim he was opposing). In 1836 he marched that army into Texas to coerce obediance. Texas declared its independence and then routed his army at San Jacinto. After achieving independence, Texas continued to provide naval support and resources to other areas in Mexico who were resisting the dictatorship. One of the battles they participated in is depicted in the engraving on the famous 1851 Colt revolver.
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.