Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
The principal at a Fayette County middle school has banned all clothing with the confederate flag emblem...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsbtv.com ...
"more & more $ 5.oo bills i see in dixie are stamped "WAR CRIMINAL", across the TYRANT's face."
That's a really good idea! Was thinking that more and more should be circulated throughout the country so people know what a scum bucket he really was, but the nifty government copier machine probably discards the marked up ones and prints spiffy new ones...
ONE of the dixie PATRIOTS doing this, down in SC, is overprinting over 100 of them a day (every one that passes threough his business place!).
free dixie,sw
Ah, come on!
Delorenzo says the North went to war over money (losing Tarrif revenues).
I just posted a statement by Jeff Davis who states that the issue in Southern Secession was over losing money on slaves if slavery was limited.
But once again, if a uniform sounds too 'facist' then a dress code would be in order.
It is free-or do you think being under a U.S.flag is tyranny?
Not at all, still beats a picture of Jeff Davis.
Did you know that Lee did not think the States had a right to secession?
Ah, come on, yourself. I didn't say I agreed with Delorenzo on everything. I just said bring forth whatever issue you have with his opinion, and we can discuss it.
Here's my opinion on the issue you raised. Slavery was a more effective issue than the tariff for promoting secession.
That being said, a protective tariff was bad for the South, and had I lived back then I might have wanted to secede because of the sectional aggrandizement the tariff represented. High tariffs transferred an appreciable amount of Southern wealth to the North to support Northern manufacturers and provide jobs for Northerners.
Was the tariff enough by itself to cause secession? I doubt it, but the Morrill Tariff was an obstacle for bringing Southern states that had already seceded back into the Union peacefully or so Northern papers argued. Once a state had made the break with the Union, why come back into a Union where your wealth was being skimmed off by the North, and you had to pay higher prices for imported goods?
Money was indeed important and the potential loss of value in slaves probably far exceeded the penalty the South would pay from the tariff. Jefferson Davis, who argued against secession in his home state (so I understand), was probably correct in his analysis.
It was probably infuriating to the South that the North was nullifying the Constitution with respect to the return of fugitive slaves. What good was the constitutional bargain you struck over that issue in 1787 if the other side was going to violate it with impunity?
Did you know that Robert E. lee wore size 4 shoes.?
Thanks for keeping that story out there. I'm waiting for some PC idiot to finally figure out that all SIX of the Six Flags Over Texas flew over slavery at one time or another. There's even a memorial to a black civil rights leader in Austin where the Six Flags (including the Stars and Bars) flies proudly adjacent.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
I reread your post. By mistake I had interpreted it as saying Delorenzo thought the South seceded because of the tariff. Sorry. I jumped to that conclusion because it is a frequent point argued here.
Delorenzo actually raises a good point. Without Southern cotton exports, the North faced several problems:
(1) The North faced a balance of payments problem. The value of exports from the North would not likely match what they imported. They'd have to decrease the amount they imported, face inflation, and/or devalue their currency.
(2) With the South charging a lower tariff (roughly the same tariff as the US tariff of 1857), imports that were ultimately headed to the South would bypass the warehouses in Northern ports where tariffs had normally been paid and head directly for Southern ports where there was less duty. This is what Northern ports were screaming about in the early months of 1861. Revenue and employment at those Northern ports would drop. New York, Boston, and Philadelphia would be significantly affected.
(3) Some imports to Northern states (particularly the Western ones) would likely first be imported to Southern states and smuggled across the border into the US to avoid the US tariff. The US would have to combat the smuggling.
(4) By early 1861, Congress had gone on a spending spree and added tremendous debt to the country. Since tariffs accounted for most of the income to pay this debt, they faced a real problem in paying for the projects and bonds they had floated.
One way out of this mess was to stop the South from leaving, which Lincoln chose to do.
The fact that the North would have been hurt by the South leaving goes without saying, as would the South would have been hurt by the North leaving it.
The real question was why did the South attempt secession and what did the Confederate Flag represent in doing so.
As quoted, the Southern leadership made it very clear, slavery was the central issue, the 'right' to expand it into the new territories.
On that issue, the Republican Party refused to compromise on.
'Dixie' is part of the United States and is free.
The UN is not a 'Northern' vs 'Southern' issue it is a nationalism vs internationalism issue, America vs globalism.
The Confederate Flag is not a rejection of the UN, it is a rejection of the American flag.
You cannot serve two flags, espically when they represent opposite values.
Also, we have to judge what happened in the light of over 20 years of tension between the regions.
However, Lincoln pledged to enforce the stricter fugitive slave act, despite hostility from his own Party for doing so.
Lincoln pledged to uphold all of the Constitution, including enforcement of Southen rights.
What Lincoln would not compromise on was the reason he was elected, on stopping slave expansion.
He believed that this was a goal of the Founding Fathers, and he was returning to their own view that slavery had to be limited so it would eventually die.
The South split from its own Democratic Party before it split with the Nation on this issue.
Yes, but that remaining 1% really hits the mark, and it is 1% more then you ever post.
I agree that slavery was the central issue or occasion leading to the war, but it was not the only issue.
With regard to expanding slavery into the new territories -- according to the treaty by which we purchased the Louisiana territory, inhabitants had a right to take their property (property included slaves in those days) anywhere in the territory. The 1820 Missouri compromise made part of the territory slave free, but it was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The North apparently wanted to defy the Supreme Court ruling.
The South had expended money and lives obtaining territory obtained from Mexico in the Mexican War. I read statistics somewhere, in the Congressional Globe I think, that by far the bulk of volunteers in the Mexican War came from the South. Many of them were probably slave owners. The North wanted to deny those slave owners the right to take their property into the territory their effort had obtained.
Northern politicians wanted the land for their constituents. What was it Lincoln said, that the territories should be for free white people? Right out of the Free Soil Party playbook. Similarly, Southern politicans tried to appeal to their constituents and make the territories open to them and their slaves. By restricting the number of slave states, free states would in the future control Congress.
Politicians will be politicians. So what else is new?
The real question was why did the South attempt secession and what did the Confederate Flag represent in doing so.
I've answered the first part of that above.
The Confederate Battle Flag was the flag of the common Confederate soldier, chosen to be distinguishable from the Stars and Stripes on the battlefield. You may choose to dis the CBF because of slavery. And I may choose to honor it because of heritage and totally ignore what you think.
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.