The Dems has always been the party of racists. They know it. That is the reason they try so hard to make up stories about the right being the racists to deflect from their black guilt.
What did you think of the link I gave you in post 23?
Yes, it's revisionism, plain and simple, exactly as described in my rebuttal, which I notice you have yet to respond to. There is no primary evidence that tariffs were a primary cause for secession. That was your claim:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
And if you do some real checking, you'll find out that if the Gov't wasn't taking money from the south and spending it in the north, the "civil" war would probably never happened. Yep, that's right folks......it was mainly the redistribution of wealth that caused those hundreds of thousands to lives to be lost and all that destruction.
It's untrue. You're posting ahistorical revisionism - claims made long after the fact and unsupported by the historical evidence - that, whatever your intent for posting it, is intended to exonerate the secessionists from their monstrous crimes.
The intransigence of the slave-holding southerners caused the Civil War. Rather than phase that "peculiar institution" out, as the founders had hoped, the slaveholders prioritized entrenching the institution in perpetuity. Thus, the conflict was inevitable.
There is no primary evidence that tariffs were a primary cause for secession. That was your claim:
There is plenty, in what I showed you, and plenty more if you choose to research it, but you simply choose not to believe it.
It's untrue. You're posting ahistorical revisionism - claims made long after the fact and unsupported by the historical evidence - that, whatever your intent for posting it, is intended to exonerate the secessionists from their monstrous crimes.
B.S. I'm just posting things that you don't want to hear or believe. And for the record, I'm not trying to exonerate any crime. I agree that slavery was a big part of it. Just not the whole story, as you and so many liberals choose to believe.
I also find it funny that after all the time you cry about big business and plutocrats, I finally show that some of the things you claim actually happened, and suddenly you don't think they have anything to do with history. I guess they only have any power when it suits your claims, and none at other times. LOL
The intransigence of the slave-holding southerners caused the Civil War. Rather than phase that "peculiar institution" out, as the founders had hoped, the slaveholders prioritized entrenching the institution in perpetuity. Thus, the conflict was inevitable.
Do you understand what these things mean? (From your link.)
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
You may have to put a little thought into this. Do you think you can? Do you remember something about taxation without representation? Do you understand that somethings are thought of as so obvious that they don't require explanation?
Nothing wrong with having heros in your miserable life to admire !
It was liberals who freed the slaves !
^What a joke!
It was Democrats who worked to enslave them and to keep them enslaved, and it was forward thinking, moderate Rep's who freed them! It most certainly wasnt a bunch of socialists who would then work to enslave them by gov't dependency, where almost half of them remain uneducated and constantly trying to scare the bleep out of them for their own political gain!
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847
A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
Nope, I don't deserve any thanks. I had nothing to do with what my ancestors did. (Obviously.) Just like descendants of slaves aren't owed anything, because their ancestors were slaves.
Revisionist propaganda? I may have overstated the importance of over taxation (tariffs) as the main reason, for the civil war, but it most certainly was one of the main reasons. There were many reasons, actually. Slavery was used as the "poster child", if you will, for the problems between the North and the South. The South used the issue of slavery as the example, but the issue was that the South did not believe that the North should be able to rule them. That is not what they had agreed to. In fact, it was almost the exact thing that they had revolted against England for.
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847
A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
Here, I'm quoting my own post, because I want to be sure that you read it, Free. After you read it, be honest with yourself when you think about what it means.
In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.
This is a very long article, but I think anyone interested in how slavery and race were thought of, and treated, by the North and the south, should read it.
It is misleading, however, to say the North was complicit in American slavery. It was foundational. The slave trade began and was carried out mainly by New England States for more than a century and a half. The wealth piled up by New England and New York was generated by servicing slave economies throughout the Western Hemisphere. The purchase of slaves and land in the South and elsewhere was financed by Northern banks; slave-produced staples were transported in Northern ships and insured by Northern companies. The global industrial revolution was based on textile manufacturing which generated an insatiable demand for cotton throughout the world. It is no exaggeration to say the New York City of 1860 was built on slave produced cotton. So was the New England textile industry. Some 75 to 90 percent of federal revenue came from the Southern export trade. The federal government was funded from the first up to 1860 by slave labor.
the bigger question is whose policies are keeping blacks down now ? Welfare has become institutionalized as part of the black experience. Absentee fathers, high crime, high mortatlity, worse overall health ..etc .. All after billions upon billions spent to further the "Great Society" affirmative action, educational pet projects and other such lofty socialist ideas. How about the decline of the black family that is created by gubmnt programs that award welfare queens of all races?
If anyone is enslaving blacks in the modern era it is certainly the Democrat socialists who so arrogantly want to lord over us from womb to tomb. These policies insure nothing but a low end life style, complacency and sloth...
The southern states seceded over slavery, as the historical record makes unambiguously clear. South Carolina started the war by firing on federal troops at Fort Sumter.
Slavery was used as the "poster child", if you will, for the problems between the North and the South. The South used the issue of slavery as the example, but the issue was that the South did not believe that the North should be able to rule them. That is not what they had agreed to. In fact, it was almost the exact thing that they had revolted against England for.
Those may be the most ridiculous claims you've ever posted.
I don't know why you insist on buying into fringe claims that contradict historical evidence, but clearly for some reason you do.
...
Calhoun believed the liberty Southerners enjoyed depended on slavery. Contrary to the writings of those who unabashedly celebrated the North's free labor system, antebellum Southern society, though definitely stratified, was highly fluid. Fortunes could be and were made in a single generation. Agriculture, specifically cotton, was what made that society so mobile. Cotton was a labor-intensive crop, and as a farmer acquired greater cotton wealth, he required a greater number of field hands to work his expanding fields. So the ownership of slaves became a measure of status and upward mobility. To destroy slavery, according to Calhoun, would be to destroy a powerful symbol of what motivated the Southern man to improve himself.
...
After Calhoun's death on March 31, 1850, one of his greatest foes, U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, sternly rebuked an associate who suggested that he honor Calhoun with a eulogy in Congress. 'He is not dead, sir — he is not dead,' remarked Benton, a staunch Unionist. 'There may be no vitality in his body, but there is in his doctrines.' A decade later, a bloody civil war would prove Benton was right.
Are you serious? You post a link to an article that says a lot of the things that I have said, mixed in with a bunch of crap about a guy who was pro-slavery, but died over a decade before the civil war. WTF?
OK....I'm done. Why should I care if you want to believe the revisionist story of what started the civil war. Hell, you don't even believe the reality of what goes on today.
The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.
You did raise an interesting question, 2dumb, with your anachronisitic (and false) assertion that, "it was mainly the redistribution of wealth that caused those hundreds of thousands to lives to be lost and all that destruction," and that is of the role of tariffs, if any, in sharpening the sectional divisions leading up to civil war. Not that the following is a reliable source, but it's the nearest I can find to support the claim that the tariff had any proximate cause in the civil war at all.
And, it explains the position of the London press at the time and certainly exposes their motive for partiality - and their claim as to the real issue(s) of the war.
March 2, 1861 - Morrill Tarriff Act of 1861. The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a major protectionist tariff bill instituted in the United States. The act is informally named after its sponsor, Rep. Justin Morrill of Vermont, who designed the bill around recommendations by economist Henry C. Carey. The tax is significant for severely altering American commercial policy after a period of relative free trade to several decades of heavy protection. It replaced the Tariff of 1857. The Morrill Tariff is also remembered as a contentious issue that fueled sectional disputes on the eve of the American Civil War. The immediate effect of the Morrill Tariff was to more than double the tax collected on most dutiable items entering the United States. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate being around 18% ad valorem. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised this average to 37%, and in subsequent years was revised upward until in 1864 (when it could only be collected from states under Union control) the average rate stood at 47%. The act passed the United States House of Representatives by a strictly sectional vote during the first session of the 36th Congress on May 10, 1860. Virtually all of the northern representatives supported it and southern representatives opposed it. The bill was headed toward adoption in the United States Senate when Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia, a free trade advocate, employed parliamentary tactics to delay the vote until the second session after recess. This second session did not meet until after the 1860 election, so the move guaranteed that the tax issue would come up during the campaigns that fall. During the campaign the Republican Party endorsed higher tariffs in their 1860 platform and campaigned on a protectionist ticket—especially in states like Pennsylvania (home of powerful Congressman and iron producer Thaddeus Stevens) and New Jersey where several industrial interests backed the rate hike. A large majority of Southerners opposed the tax increase because it hurt them financially and campaigned against it (though protective tariffs could benefit Louisiana's sugar plantation owners from Caribbean imports). Unlike the north where manufacturers benefited from protection, the south had few manufacturing industries. Most of the southern economy depended on the export of crops like cotton and tobacco, which were hurt on the world scene by policies that adversely impacted international trade. Returning in December, after the election, the Senate again took up the Morrill bill and intensely debated it for the next several months. On February 14, 1861 the new President-elect Abraham Lincoln publicly announced that he would make a new tariff his priority if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4: "According to my political education, I am inclined to believe that the people in the various sections of the country should have their own views carried out through their representatives in Congress, and if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff." On February 28 the Senate finally voted on and adopted the Morrill Tariff. The vote was again on sectional lines and came at the height of the secession crisis, but many southern senators had already resigned their seats to side with their states (somewhat ironically, thus ensuring easy passage). It was one of the last bills signed by outgoing Democratic president, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. The bill was proposed after the Panic of 1857, which northerners such as Henry Carey blamed on the country's free trade policy—a problem he claimed the bill would rectify with protectionism (economists now recognize that the Panic of 1857 was caused by other unrelated factors). The main purpose of the Morrill Tariff's high rates was the protection of industrial manufacturing, located mostly in the northeast, from foreign competitor products. Due to the penalties it imposed on foreign traded goods the act formented hostility and condemnation of the United States from abroad. Anger over the new American tariff caused many British commentators and politicians to express sympathy for the new Confederate States of America over the north. The high rates probably also contributed to the rapid decline in British exports to the United States in the early summer of 1861.
Your whole view of the civil war is misguided by confederate revisionism. Lincoln didn't "go to war" - the secessionists did.
The thought-wreck you are on is similiar to those on the right who blame President Obama for many of today's problems, when in reality it is they who do the most to cause them. An obvious example, one often posted here, it to blame Obama for perceived heightened racial tensions. Racial tensions aren't any higher, and even if they were, it wouldn't be due to anything Obama did, other than run for and be elected president. No, the supposed "heightened racial tensions" white right wingers think they see are actually their own, because they're freaked out by a black president who doesn't cater to their nuttiness. Or, as they so obsessively remind the rest of us, a "half-black" president. Because you see, they're really not racist at all and if they had their druthers, wouldn't even pay attention to the fact that Obama is half-black, and his father was Kenyan, and blah blah blah .... Oh wait! They're freakin' obsessed with all that, to the point they have to endlessly speculate and fabricate and lie and make entire videos about it. No, they're not racist at all.
and if they had their druthers, wouldn't even pay attention to the fact that Obama is half-black, and his father was Kenyan, and blah blah blah .... 
Linear Mode
