Posted on 04/10/2015 5:03:22 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
I am aware of all those things. Telling me I’m blind to things I recognize isn’t particularly useful.
And yes - all those intrusions are problematic and troubling. So what (besides whining about them) have you done to stem the tide? What actions are you taking to reverse course?
When does the revolution start general?
Nice to see that "classy" and "Confederate" are still often a contradiction in terms.
FDR never lost a southern state. The south loves it's socialism as much as anyone and put us where we are today as much as any other region.
I told you you were blind because you denied losing any freedoms.
I worked to defeat John Sullivan, a RINO in OK, and replaced him with Jim Bridenstein. Currently working with a Tea Party friend to get him into the OK State senate. Working to get the Convention of the Stated passed. SJR4, the Oklahoma COS resolution, passed the House rules committee with an 8 to 2 vote.
You should refrain from attempting to put words in other people’s mouths. It tends to make you look foolish.
Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods only for Southerners.
How can that be true? If your factory is in Massachusetts and you ship goods to South Carolina then you pay a a price for transportation. But if you ship goods to Ohio or Illinois or Pennsylvania then aren't there also transportation fees? Same with imports. If you buy an imported good then you pay a price for the tariff and that is true if you are in Georgia or in Ohio. Tariffs hit all consumers equally regardless of their location. So how can the author claim that those costs only hit Southerners?
Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs.
How could shipping goods from Europe be cheaper than shipping goods from other parts of the U.S.? The distances are shorter so the transportation costs, insurance, etc. would be less than trans-Atlantic. Wouldn't they?
Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.
I have never seen any evidence of that. Canals like the Erie Canal and every other canal built during the 18th and 19th century were either funded by the state or they were private enterprises. Same with railroads. I don't know of a single rail line paid for by the federal government. Even the transcontinental railroads were funded by government loans which had to be paid back. So I think this is a blanket statement without any truth at all. Unless you can point me to some information showing I'm wrong on this.
With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.
Except that wasn't true. Other people have posted statistics showing that in the year prior to the war close to 95% of all tariffs were collected in northern ports like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Why would that be true if all those goods were destined for southern consumers?
Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves picking cotton.
And yet documents detailing the reasons for secession mention slavery time after time after time and don't mention the tariff. Why would that be true if the tariff was the major reason?
Slavery was a dying and repugnant institution.
Do you have any quotes from any southern leaders of the time which shows that they believed this?
But while we're on the subject of quotes, what do you make of this one. Henry Benning was sent from Georgia to Virginia to address the Virginia Secession Convention. In addition to saying that slavery was the reason why Georgia left the Union, he touched on the subject of tariffs. He discussing how the Confederacy would fund itself, he told the convention, "I have no idea that the duties will be as low as 10 per cent. My own opinion is that we shall have as high duty as is now charged by the General Government at Washington. If that matter is regarded as important by this Convention, why the door is open for negotiation with us. We have but a provisional and temporary government so far. If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit."
If protective tariffs were such a big reason for secession then why were they promising Virginia protective tariffs as high as Virginia wanted them?
Read the words you wrote! - "I haven’t given anything away."
I was responding to you saying you haven't lost liberty.
You said: “I will continue to fight for what you give away.”
implying that I have voluntarily given away something that you haven’t. The statement is impossibly myopic on the face of it and impossible to prove.
My response (rightly) was: “I haven’t given anything away.”
And I haven’t. Yes, I would agree that some liberties HAVE BEEN TAKEN from me but short of killing everyone in sight or moving to the moon there isn’t much that any of us can do beyond the activities that you claim you are doing. Bully for you. I happen to be doing them, too.
If you were more thoughtful about what you post you might not be so hyperbolic.
Really? If you want to see corruption you need look no further than the corrupt hand picked(by by slavers) Federal employees in Black robes before the WBTS.
Every president up to and including Lincoln recognized the God-given right of revolution given sufficient cause. Sufficient cause for revolution did no exist in 1860. If you're going to rebel you had best have a righteous cause. The south did not and chose poorly.
The North had the right to kick the South’s ass.
Thus speaks every tyrant.
And every patriot.
Very interesting—the website was out of date, but in the end still more accurate than my previous knowledge, as that puts to rest the idea that ratifying was an absolute requirement for re-admission.
I realize you are heavily biased on this issue, and feel a compulsion to constantly put out your words. Perhaps some of your ancestors were heavily involved in the Union, and it hurts you to think of them as oppressors, but it is not healthy to be so obsessed with a topic that you are still camping out in a thread since yesterday.
Oh, and Patriots defend their own country, not invade others.
The wealthy and powerful in other states feel they have the right to dictate policy to the rest of us. This is an old problem. It used to be called "Aristocracy."
It was a required by congress and adhered to by most of the states. Johnson decided to look the other way with Mississippi.
Compared to what the Norther states had, cotton is a poor substitute. Even oil wouldn't be all that valuable if you didn't have the machinery to use it.
Still for the same reason. Because they had Union guns pointed at them, forcing them to do it.
Then why are you here?
Oh, and Patriots defend their own country, not invade others.
The union troops didn't invade another country. They invaded a portion of the union that was in a state of insurrection.
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.