This is why you are such a tiny little runt in these arguments. Your argument is "Because someone else did it too, then you can't blame us for doing it."
Your argument level is what you would expect from first graders.
Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.
The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-----------------------------------
I see where total Federal receipts fell from $65 million in 1855 to $56 million in 1860, then rose to $113 million on 1863 after all cotton exports stopped.
But there is more to this story, and I'll have to look up those numbers later.
------------------
PeaRidge: "Federal debt in 1860 was 64.8 million."
--------------------
Which is equivalent in today's world to about $3 trillion, as compared to our actual current national debt of, what is it now, $20 trillion? So financially, the US was in vastly better shape in 1861 than it is today.
Mull that over in your mind...
This is why you are such a tiny little runt in these arguments. Your argument is "Because someone else did it too, then you can't blame us for doing it."
Your argument level is what you would expect from first graders.
I'm not sure where your 1863 figure comes from. Source please. My own figures for that and other years year come from F. W. Taussig's "The Tariff History of the United States" published in 1910 [Link], page 345.
Also, you are perhaps forgetting that the North underwent inflation during the war, a natural consequence of the war and of not having cotton exports to offset the imports. The tariff income (duties collected) for 1863 was worth $45.8 million in 1860 dollars. That was down from what was collected in 1860.
See my linked table that includes the effect of inflation: [Inflation effect on tariff income. Post 174].
The link in that post to Inflation Rates no longer works... I'm sure you can find comparable rates listed elsewhere. From my table you can also see the effective tariff rate for each year. The North kept raising tariff rates during the war.
I should have pinged you to post 303.
Value of Total U.S. Exports ..........$278,902,000
Value of Raw Southern Products:
....................Cotton .....................$161,435,000
....................Tobacco .....................21,074,000
....................Rice ............................2,207,000
....................Naval stores .................3,696,000
....................Sugar ..........................197,000
....................Molasses ........................76,000
....................Hemp .............................9,000
....................Other ........................9,615,000
________
Total ( 71% ) $198,309,000
Value of Southern manufactured Cotton exports ............4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern Manufactured cotton exports (60%) ......3,669,000
___________
Total ( 74% ) $205,459,000
Value of Processed Foods:
.............Bread-stuffs/processed fish/meats/corn...........$36,640,000
Total Southern Products ( 87% ) $242,099,000
Export Specie for Purchase or debts: ........$57,502,000 assume 20% for overseas purchase.
Total Southern Contribution ....................$252,000,000
U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Treasury, Report of L. E. Chittenden, Howell Cobb, Treasurer, Annual State of the Union Address, James Buchanan, J. D. B. DeBow, Charles Adams, Thomas Kettel, W. F. Taussig, Thomas Huertas, Historical Statistics of the United States Department of Commerce, pg. 106,432.
Go ahead and correct these figures.
None of that is true.
Did you take into account the increases in tariffs and the rate of inflation, there, Brojoke?
No, you didn't.
As for the red herring about 1862, that was well after the decision making time that Linooln used to order the warships to Charleston.
You held onto that fantasy for several days of postings, kind of like you are doing now with the tariff data that you really don't have.
I think it is clear that you are basically just typing to be typing.
“I see where total Federal receipts fell.....then rose to $113 million on 1863 after all cotton exports stopped.”
Where are you getting that data?
States rights? Bull Shit! For the southern states, it was out of the frying pan and into the fire. Ask yourselves, "Why did every state, which in their noble and honorable bid for independence and self-determination, and in their glorious effort to unchain themselves from the yoke of tyranny that was the North, .......pledge allegiance to the Confederacy?" Not one of those states stood on their own. What was it that attracted them to the Confederacy? What was the principle peculiar institution that was central to the "Confederacy"?........and which, in order to join the Confederacy, every state had to agree to?
I love my rebel brothers, and even though us pansy boys from the North kicked your F'ing a**es, you boys shouldn't be taking it out on Lincoln. And like Abe, I would never deprive our country of your Battle Flag. You should rather be taking it out on the very bad and evil people whose aim in life it was to rake in oodles of cash from the sweat of another mans labor. They used you as their cannon fodder. Lincoln knew exactly what those guys were up to (re: House Divided Speech). He details their blueprint. He knew full well that the Dred Scott Decision was a major stepping stone in the plans of Slave Power Aristocracy. That decision declared that a black was something less than a human and, in fact, had no standing to bring a case into court. The best you guys can come up with is that President Lincoln may have once said something like, "what about the tariffs/revenue?" Y'all still don't grasp the man's intellect and humor. Especially in light of the fact that half of his country was up and leaving merely due to he himself being elected. And don't forget that he had vowed, in his First Innaugural, to protect all federal property should the south leave. Bear in mind also that a fruitcake named Jeffy Davis, himself, made the decision that Anderson be ordered to "evacuate" Fort Sumter, in so many hours, or the bombardment would commence. And that bombardment did commence with the firing of so much of the artillery that been being maneuvered into position to surround Major Anderson in the preceding days and weeks. Any one who reads the whole story, with an open mind, knows that the Majors confusion over the apparent conflict in his directions were due to the meddling of Sec of State Seward.
Let us all remember that there are fine distinctions between the terms "the South" and "the Confederacy". The CSA put the South in a position of defending itself, hearth and home, in it's War against the North. No, slavery was not on life support. In no way, shape or form was it inevitably going to soon die out on its own. That was the cause of the Confederacy. The cause of the Confederacy was the continuation in perpetuity, and the expansion, of Slavery. Slavery was the very cornerstone of the Confederacy!! The causes of the Confederacy and the causes of Johnny Reb,.........we're not aligned. I will go so far as to say, that well by now, a true Southerner would be condemning the "Confederacy". End Rant.
What does that matter? If I want to leave an association which I feel no longer serves my interests, I don't have to justify my reasons. I can leave for any D@mn well reason that I please.
But *YOU* on the other hand, in laying your hands on me to keep me from leaving, *YOUR REASONS* D@mn well better be good ones.
The person who initiates the violence is the one who needs to explain their actions, not the person who wants to be left alone.
More like just since I found this map from an anti-confederate website.
I realized instantly what that map signified, and it wasn't what the guy who created it thought it would signify.
Yup. They wanted to keep their money.
Look at who was in Lincoln’s cabinet. THEY were the winners.
You are going to try to impugn his statement by linking him to slavery? Are you so desperate then that you assert Lincoln's commander at Ft. Sumter was on the other side somehow?
Is his statement so dangerous to your fragile beliefs that you must besmirch his character to allow yourself to disregard what he said?
I think a nerve has been struck.
Yes, were I you, arguing *your* set of facts, I should very much like to find an excuse to dismiss the observation of Lincoln's own man, when that man makes it clear that Lincoln is at fault for starting the conflict.
That statement by Major Anderson is a smoking gun. If a Union Army officer who was defending the Fort on behalf of the Union says that Lincoln deliberately provoked the war, then you pretty much have no where else to go in denying it.
I had the honor to receive by yesterday’s mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly…I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country. It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned...I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.
Exactly right. The North wanted to keep the South's money. 3/4ths of the trade represented by those coins piled up on New York, are the value of exports produced by the South.
You are giving the Confederate South credit for much more than it deserves, while failing to list exports for other areas of the country.
My post #248 includes a link to one source of data on US imports & exports of that period (see page 605).
It shows exports of goods as $334 million in 1860, while net of specie was another $58 million.
I assume that represents gold & silver from new mines out west.
This links shows a simplistic graphic of exports & imports at the time, with total exports put at $316 million.
For a detailed breakdown of what those exports were, see this link, referred to as the Hanson tables.
Hanson tables show raw cotton exports as $192 million, which is 54% of $357 total exports.
rustbucket: "I'm not sure where your 1863 figure comes from. Source please. "
Sadly, this link is incomplete, but does give some idea as to what was going on.
It shows:
Yes, some of that is inflation, but the real driver is growth in total GDP, from $4.3 billion in 1860 to nearly $10 billion in 1865.
Again, my point in all this is that while cotton was certainly important to the US economy in 1860, within just a few years the US had learned to get along just fine without it.
Cotton turned out to be less of an economic weapon than Confederates had believed it would be.
Finally, in my post #248 above I put 1860 exports at $357 million, which is a number I'd developed based on other sources, but which can be verified by these sources if we simply discount species exports by half.
Why discount species exports?
Well, like you, I'm not 100% comfortable with them, don't fully understand what the term means.
Anyway, that's how I get cotton exports down from your claim of 70% to a much more realistic roughly 55% of total US exports in 1860.
“I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This does not proceed soley from the claim on the part of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law.
“All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy.
“The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable.
“Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary consequence be to render the homes and firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the Constitution and the Union throughout all generations. James Buchanan
Of course I did, at the time, and acknowledged the data from that book appears to be in error, though I never did lay out all the toes & froes of shipping to understand exactly where it went wrong.
But what is it in your feeble brain that drives you to refer back to this, falsely, so many years later?
Inquiring minds want to know: what is your major malfunction, FRiend?
One would have to accept your strawmen in order to concede the analogies are relevant to begin with. Ok, so I'll play for the moment.
The South's "enemy attack" upon Lincoln's instigators? After the Union troops (customs enforcement) inside Fort Sumter refused to vacate it, Confederate forces opened fire on it with cannons. Union instigators surrendered without casualty -- except for two soldiers killed when their cannon exploded. NOT exactly "Pearl Harbor, was it?
This was more like a mere baseball brush-back exchange between two teams comprised of cousins; Pearl Harbor was a one-sided brawl, with Visitor Japan stacking the stadium with hooligans and ruffians, mugging and murdering its hosts.
America had prevented Japan from buying much needed rubber and war supplies due to its aggression against China and its sphere of influence. Frustrated, Japan at first tried to send ambassadors in order to negotiate and tamp down America's hardline stance.
LINCOLN's policy OTOH was strangling the American South labor/resource-rich cousins unfairly with high tariffs and import taxes; Ironically treating the South like ITS slave.
Dishonest socialist FDR didn't care if he ruffled Japan's feathers, period. Moreover, the US had broken Japan's code. Yes, he and the PTB *knew* exactly when Japan was going to bomb Pearl and used the incident to force the US into a war in the Pacific.
Lincoln also needed an "Incident" to get the uppity, secession-minded South back in line. Fort Sumter was as good an instigation as any. Except that it almost backfired on Dishonest Abe and his Northern, profiteering Industrialist overlords.
History always repeats itself, sadly.
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.