This speaks for itself.
Posted on 03/10/2019 7:34:32 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
In the bar tying one on?
It's a mystery.
This speaks for itself.
I've argued with someone of that name on another website, and she was an obnoxious bitch. Disliked her quite a lot.
Considering Trump's NY pedigree one might argue she was at least being consistent.
I am thrilled to death to have that particular New Yorker running the nation right now. I did have some misgivings about him at first, but I am now pleased beyond measure that he won.
Here I agree with you. Of course they wanted more land and more people because from the combination of the two, more power grows.
It was the March 23 edition, "An Extra Session of Congress", page 4.
...But Congress should go further. It must adopt some measures which will enable it to act in regard to secession. At present, the action of our Government contrasts most unfavorably with the energy and freedom of action displayed at Montgomery. The Government installed there acts with a view to its own interests and convictions alone. Let us show it that while we desire peace, this is a game that two can play at. We can at once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin upon the Confederate States. We should injure our trade somewhat, but not more, perhaps, than by our present inaction, which every one sees may have to terminate in some decisive step, of the character indicated. Let us begin to have some kind of a policy. The country cannot wait till the end of next December. There is no knowing where we may drift before that time. We may not have to exert force, but a nation that cannot do so, whenever its vital interests are assailed, inspires only contempt. We cannot place ourselves in such a category.
https://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/23/archives/an-extra-session-of-congress.html
Looks like you have the History Deniers on this one. ;-)
From the article An Extra Session of Congress, it almost seems as though it was a deliberate provocation by the Pubbie CONgress, forcing Lincoln to act against his own will.
It cheesed off the Brits mightily - except a certain sewer rat living in Britain who has plagued the world and caused the death of millions, even after he checked out of this life:
"Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war."
A non-sewer rat wrote about his perception of the war:
The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley, which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:
If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? ...Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance.
With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived ...
The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union ...
So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle.
Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils ... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.
We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.
21st attempt.
You know that isn't true. The confederates had agents and provocateurs in almost every state and territory agitating for admission to the regime.
You know that is true. Not one of the original 7 seceding states nor the others which later seceded after Lincoln started the war anywhere in their ordinances of secession made a claim to the territories of the US. They each left with only their own sovereign territory.
Looks like you have the History Deniers on this one. ;-)
Oh no doubt. I've posted this and numerous other articles from the period. But of course, actual facts will never compare to their PC Revisionist dogma....at least in their minds....Therefore pesky things like facts, quotes and sources cannot even dent their faith. Really, that's standard fare for Leftists.
Here I agree with you. Of course they wanted more land and more people because from the combination of the two, more power grows.
Some individuals? No doubt. The states as a whole? They made no claim upon any US territories. They didn't start trying to seize any of them until AFTER Lincoln started the war. Once a war was on, of course they then tried to seize some of the Western territories.
Why did they break slavery? As of August of 1862, Lincoln was still saying that a peaceful resolution which included slavery was still possible. Even his emancipation proclamation protected slavery in areas under Union Control. As late as 1865, General Sherman, in a speech to a captured confederate city said that a year ago they could have still kept their slaves, but now it is too late. Why did they break slavery? Several reasons, most dominant among them I think is revenge. 1. They wanted to hurt the people who fought them as badly as they could. 2. Other reasons include breaking the South's financial back because at this point there was so much hatred that anyone with eyes to see could have told you the South would be bent on revenge, and they would have clearly turned all their economic resources to accomplishing this task. 3. Payoff political allies that wanted this. 4. Create a newly enfranchised voting class that could be depended upon to always vote Republican, and thus giving them power in Congress. Also there is the general fact that most people of the North hated slavery, and this would be a popular move in those states. But to clarify that, I need to make it clear that this hatred of the idea that people had "free" workers whom they didn't have to pay. This is distinctly different from hating slavery because you saw it as injustice. This was hating slavery because you saw it as a threat to people who worked for wages. It was slavery hatred motivated by self interest, not morality, and this was in fact the dominant form of hatred of slavery throughout the North. Those who hated slavery for moral reasons were the tiniest minority of the population, and were generally regarded as kooks by most people. Also, they had so badly wrecked the South's cotton export economy, that it just wasn't that big of a prize anymore, even if they could keep it's income routing through New York. Those years of blockade had allowed European competitors to create enough supply that the South no longer had the ability to control the market as they did before the war. Without that blockade, nobody would have ever been able to create new cotton plantations that would be capable of showing a profit. Because of the blockade, they were able to create these new suppliers, and once they existed, they would thereafter be critical suppliers to the European textile manufacturers. So the South's main business was mostly destroyed anyways. I would add a few more reasons. Lincoln, after having started the war at the behest of his Northern corporate fatcat political supporters for money and empire discovered to his horror that what he thought would be a cakewalk turned out instead to be a very bloody affair. Now he needed some "noble" cause to dress it up in - after all, lots of Northerners had been killed and lots more left crippled and maimed. It doesn't do to tell the loved ones of somebody who was killed or who had a leg blown off that it was all for money and empire no matter how true that actually is. People don't want to hear that. So, two years after they started the war, after offering slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment, after the Northern dominated Congress passed a resolution specifically saying they were not fighting over slavery they then discovered it had been "all about slavery". PC Revisionists have clung to that laughable war time propaganda ever since.
Thanks an amused spectator for that link, a number of us tried to find it, without success.
I've saved it for future reference.
This recommendation from the New York Times sounds to me exactly like our current President's recent threat to "close the border" with Mexico.
Nobody thinks he wants to, everybody understands it would be costly to us too, but something must be said or done to get Mexico's attention.
In March 1861, the New York Times is merely laying out options, what we "can" do.
But note also, there's no discussion of "money flows from Europe", instead the issue the NY Times describes is only tariff collection in Confederate ports.
But those ports combined produced only 6% of Federal revenues (and 3/4 of those from New Orleans), so this was not a crisis.
A final point -- our Lost Causers tell us the Confederate Tariff was "only 10%" compared to the new US Morrill Tariff.
This article says the old Tariff of 1857 adopted by Confederates was "at least 10% lower", meaning up to 90% the same as Morrill.
Whig-Republicans had long favored higher protective tariffs.
Morrill-like upward revisions began to be submitted soon after the lower Tariff of 1857 passed.
Morrill's proposal came in 1859 during a Democrat administration & Congress -- it went nowhere.
So Morrill had nothing to do with secession, it was simply long-standing Whig-Republican policy which finally passed in early 1861 because Southern Democrats resigned from Congress.
On March 23, 1861 the New York Times saw high tariffs as an issue and so proposed Congress should adjust Morrill rates and, if necessary, "get tough" with Confederates.
Sounds very Trump-like to me.
The Confederacy officially claimed New Mexico territory in early 1862, but well before that:
As demonstrated above in that NY Times article, the words don't actually say what FLT-bird so eagerly wishes they did say.
Confederates "tried to seize" whatever they thought they could -- from New Mexico & Oklahoma to Missouri, Kentucky & Maryland.
They also challenged Unionists in Kansas & West Virginia while sending Confederate forces into Pennsylvania, Ohio & Indiana.
Confederate guerillas operated from California & Colorado to Vermont(!)
So any suggestions that Confederates "just wanted to be left alone" are pure nonsense.
Perhaps in some grand-bargain with Confederates, but no such bargain was ever remotely contemplated and so the war went on.
By August, 1862 already:
Speaking of our Lost Causers, of course.
They're in good company, as I've shown with the post about Karl Marx. ;-)
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.