Posted on 06/29/2017 8:17:07 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
According to the founders, God is the supreme law. The Declaration cites the Right to Independence as given by God. Therefore it does not matter at all what some man made document says about it, the right to have independence is a inherent natural right that does not have to be articulated on a piece of paper.
Slavery was appalling then as it is now. The only treason there was a war over it here in the US is becsuse democrat, elite, plantation, slave owners wanted one.
This is completely incorrect. What the South wanted was to keep most of the 238 million dollars of income produced by the slaves instead of letting New York siphon off 40% of their total revenues, with Washington D.C. also putting 50% tariffs on them as well.
The reason there was a war was because the Wealthy New Yorkers who were getting that 40% wanted to keep getting that 40%, and they had an agent in the White House. That Agent also wanted to keep those 50% tariffs flowing money into the treasury. The Southern exports paid for about 75% of the total federal revenues in 1860. Without them the government was in serious financial trouble.
The Union launched a war against the South to keep that money flowing into New York, to reestablish the federal tariff income, and most importantly to stop the South from creating a competing export economy in the South.
The War was over greed. The "slavery" excuse was put forth after the fact to justify all the blood and destruction caused by the greed of those who instigated the war.
The one thing the war was *NOT* about was slavery. Lincoln agreed to support the "Corwin Amendment" which would have made slavery permanently and protected by the US Constitution. Had the South stayed in the Union, Lincoln was going to bend over backward to make sure they could have all the slavery they wanted.
Slavery wasn't the cause of war. The Union being deprived of that slave earned money was the cause of the war.
GREED was the cause of the war.
Your understanding of the causes of the civil war is NOT based in fact the so called accuracy of your history is way off. It doesn’t matter what the declaration says the constitution is our law setting document
“The tariff issue was and is sometimes cited–long after the war–by Lost Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860–61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession brought up the tariff issue as a major issue.[141] Pamphleteers North and South rarely mentioned the tariff,[142] and when some did, for instance, Matthew Fontaine Maury[143] and John Lothrop Motley,[144] they were generally writing for a foreign audience.
The tariff in effect prior to the enactment of the Morrill Tariff of 1861, had been written and approved by the South for the benefit of the South. Complaints came from the Northeast (especially Pennsylvania) and regarded the rates as too low. Some Southerners feared that eventually the North would grow so big that it would control Congress and could raise the tariff at will.[145]
As for states’ rights, while a state’s right of revolution mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was based on the inalienable equal rights of man, secessionists believed in a modified version of states’ rights that was safe for slavery.”
It most certainly is. Lincoln started the war because an independent South represented a horrible financial threat to the North Eastern interests and also Federal Revenue.
It doesn’t matter what the declaration says the constitution is our law setting document
The Constitution only gets it's legitimacy through the authority of the Declaration. If the Declaration is not true, than the Constitution has no moral claim to power.
“The tariff issue was and is sometimes cited–long after the war–by Lost Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists.
I mentioned the tariff, but that wasn't the primary cause of the war. It was the loss of 238 Million in import revenue and the potential of the South creating a New European trading system in Charleston that would severely damage New York's primary source of Income that was the primary motivation for Lincoln to march troops into the South.
The New York economy was about 1.4 billion dollars per year. Much of it revolved around shipping, trade and manufacturing. An independent South would immediately cost the New York economy that 238 million dollars that constituted the Southern export trade, and worse, the Southerners would be able to buy much cheaper and better quality European goods instead of products made in the North.
An independent South constituted a double financial whammy, and that's just getting started. That extra 238 million dollars would have financed industries in the South that would have directly competed head to head with Established Northern industries, and the Southern industries would have been able to supply the entire MidWest region with goods at much cheaper costs than could the North.
Southern Independence was a financial nightmare for Northern businessmen. It would have bankrupted many of them and cut the earnings of the others dramatically.
If the North hadn't gone to war, it would have lost money, power and territory to the newly created Confederacy. The North had to go to war with the South to save it's own financial life.
I don’t know where you get your information but it is so off base
Don’t bother to respond
My information is correct. Your information is propaganda that you have been fed all of your life.
This is my last comment to you
I have read original sources from the times. I have been fed nothing. My family fought for both armies
You do not know what you are talking about but keep at it. I am sure it makes you feel important
That is entirely up to you, but I will comment on the topic whenever I deem it should be commented upon.
I have read original sources from the times. I have been fed nothing. My family fought for both armies
One side was an invader and the other was a defender of their homeland.
You do not know what you are talking about but keep at it.
I do know what I'm talking about. The money issue is obvious once you start looking at it closely. You couple it with other facts and it becomes clear that the only reason the North attacked the South was to prevent them from establishing low tax European trade and destroying much of the Northern industry.
I am sure it makes you feel important
It is not about me. It is about correcting people's erroneous views of what happened, and trying to get them to see the truth. The Civil War was a war about money and power. The South export industry was subsidizing Northern Industries and the Federal government, and both the Northern Industries and the Federal government wanted it to continue paying the bills. (And they didn't care that the bills were being paid by slave labor.)
Northern Industries and the Federal government went to war with the South to stop it from becoming an independent economic competitor to their existing economic system.
And Boston/New York Wealthy interests have been steering Washington policy ever since.
Get ooooot!
Especially for a ditznifornian 14-year-old girl such as the author of this screed.
They now think America treats people with disrespect, even after mutha-eff-nifornian kathy griffin expresses her desire to decap Trump?
This Californian writer is as stable as the San Andreas Fault.
Is it really necessary to hijack others?
The "theories" are not lunatic. They are just called that by people who desperately wish not to believe that a horrible war was fought to empower what we now call "the Establishment";
That 750,000 people died to protect the financial interests of the Wealthy and Influential people who live in the North East, but who have an outsized influence on Washington D.C. Policy.
Is it really necessary to hijack others?
You don't think discussing the financial motives behind the last effort at secession is germane to this modern effort at secession?
Also, I just noticed you pinged a bunch of the usual suspects that can be counted on to bark like trained seals. Does this mean you think the matter which you refer to as a "hijack" should be further discussed, but with more input from your side?
So which is it? Do you want to continue in the direction of "Hijack" or not?
I'm game either way. I like keeping the focus on the financial interests in these secession questions.
Why the insult to people who've often made intelligent and important comments?
Does this mean you think the matter which you refer to as a "hijack" should be further discussed, but with more input from your side?
No, I just think it's funny what you're doing here, and other people will get a laugh or at least a smile seeing it.
I'm game either way. I like keeping the focus on the financial interests in these secession questions.
You didn't start in with the "financial interests" but with an attack on Lincoln for wanting a war. And you don't look at either the mercenary or the war-mongering aspects of the secessionist movement. How about focusing on those for a while?
Also you haven't really addressed the "financial interests" involved in California secession. No, it's a cheap shot at Lincoln and then, eventually, on to the regurgitated stuff about the tariff.
Try to read what you've written here with unbiased eyes. It really is a hijacking or mugging or holding for ransom of the thread. Funny in a way. But also sad.
We’ve already got jeffersondem all over those threads. One crackpot isn’t enough?
I have been convinced. Reason, logic, and history seem to have no impact.
That is why my final post to him said as much
But thanks for the confirmation. Sometimes I hope folks want to discuss and learn. Then I run into a Lost Causer...
Yea, I saw this tripe and figured it was perfect for DegenerateLamp. She can have it.
You know, I don't think most people would have such a big problem with DiogenesLamp's lunatic ideas if he would just confess the truth about those "Wealthy Northeasterners", namely they were all his fellow Democrats.
As Democrats in 1861 they were the former and future allies of Wealthy Slave-holding Southern Democrats who together ruled in Washington, DC from 1800 to 1861.
Then in 1861 they had a lovers' spat with their political spouses and fell out of bed, temporarily.
But after 1865 they quickly courted & re-wedded their Southern Democrat political allies, a marriage that lasted until... well, until roughly 1964.
But that's a different story.
So one major of DiogenesLamp's many problems is that he wants to blame Republicans for the actions of his fellow Northeastern Democrats, and that just won't pass muster no matter how often he repeats it.
BWAHAHAHAHA
You are correct
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.