MUH TARIFFS
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:58:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  MUH TARIFFS
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: MUH TARIFFS  (Read 8113 times)
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2014, 01:34:09 PM »

Consider this excerpt from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (emphasis mine):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lincoln plainly stated that the ONLY reason he would invade the South would be to enforce the tariff laws. Thus, unless one is an extremely passionate proponent of protectionism, it makes no sense to allow the destruction of one's hearth and home rather than attempt to repel Lincoln's invading forces.

Except it doesn't even say that.

It clearly says that Lincoln would also invade if the federal government's property (such as, say, Fort Sumter) was tampered with.

Quite apart from that, the first inaugural address had an important role as propaganda in convincing the border states to remain in the union, so shouldn't be taken as summing up all of Lincoln's war aims.

Though, if you do want to selectively quote from Lincoln's speeches, you could read this, from his first inaugural:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, maybe this one from his second inaugural:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question of whether slavery was the main cause of the war is not one serious historians debate.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2014, 01:36:47 PM »

Um...who wouldn't? If your home was actually going to be invaded, would you really choose to side with the invader? Well, maybe out of fear, but you don't have to admit that on a survey.

Well in certain circumstances, yes. If I'd been a citizen of Germany in 1944-45, I'd probably have sided with the Western Allies.
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2014, 01:39:43 PM »

Consider this excerpt from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (emphasis mine):

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lincoln plainly stated that the ONLY reason he would invade the South would be to enforce the tariff laws. Thus, unless one is an extremely passionate proponent of protectionism, it makes no sense to allow the destruction of one's hearth and home rather than attempt to repel Lincoln's invading forces.

Except it doesn't even say that.

It clearly says that Lincoln would also invade if the federal government's property (such as, say, Fort Sumter) was tampered with.

Quite apart from that, the first inaugural address had an important role as propaganda in convincing the border states to remain in the union, so shouldn't be taken as summing up all of Lincoln's war aims.

Though, if you do want to selectively quote from Lincoln's speeches, you could read this, from his first inaugural:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, maybe this one from his second inaugural:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question of whether slavery was the main cause of the war is not one serious historians debate.

This.

Assuming that secession led directly to the Civil War, and the basis of South Carolina's case for secession rested upon slavery, the link is pretty clear.

I get why Southerners tend to downplay the importance of slavery in the Civil War. But the historical revisionism is often times ridiculous.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2014, 01:48:01 PM »

Better the side that started out sort of anemic and wishy-washy about wanting to end slavery than the side that existed and was constituted solely on the basis of preserving it.
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2014, 01:48:38 PM »

Even in a peaceful secession, the Confederacy would be a 3rd world country from day one.

Ummm...not even close.

If you took the states that seceded and imagine them asa new country, it would be the world's 4th largest economy with a nominal GDP of 4.86 trillion per year.  That makes it larger than the "First world" countries of Germany, France, the UK and Canada.  With a population of 101 million people (which would make it the world's 12th most populous country, and bump the U.S. down to the number 4 spot) it would have a GDP/capita of $48,118 per year.  This puts the CSA in the 7th spot with a higher GDP/capita than Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Kuwait and Denmark to name a few.

Hardly a Third World country in my book.  Wouldn't you agree?

   
Assuming it gained independence in the Ciil War, it has an economy heavily based off agriculture, a vast segment of the society enslaved and treated pretty badly as well as a lot of poor whites.  The CSA is going to need to get its act together and start industrializing.  The US, meanwhile, will probably want the place back. The US can support a large standing army, and, with its immigration polciies, will continue growing.  The CS needs a large standing army, but if you spend all the money on that, you can't industrialize.  Without foreign gaurruntees to its defense, or assistance in industrializing, it will eventually economically collapse.  Likely, that will lead to full on slave revolts, or a revolution by the lower class white, wanting to not be poor as dirt.  Then, in a civil war, they will have to fend off the US.  It's survival just doesn't seem likely.

You missed the point.

If the 11 states of the Confederacy decided to secede again today, they would immediately be a major player on the international stage both politically and economically.

And even in an alternate universe where the South does win its independence back in the 1860s, there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have eventually industrialized and modernized in a way that would make into a world player.  The United States was itself vastly agrarian economy for most of its early history as well, after all.  European powers would have had a vested interest in seeing the CSA succeed, as it means a weaker United States, and would have supported it financially and militarily until it was able to stand on its on.

Also, with a notably less Anglo population due to the South having seceded, the United States probably doesn't come to the Allies aid during WWI and the CSA takes on the role as Western Europe's premier American ally.     
If the south became independent today, I admit it does have some stuff going for it, but I would expect counter-secession by Virginia north of the Rappohannock and the Miami region.  The south might survive a while until it's libertarian and paleo-con policies destroyed it.

The south might survive for a while post-1860s, but it has such a late start on industrialization that the US would be ahead of it, and it would eventually lose the industry race.

Well, the US' vast industrial power and large population were what helped the Allies in WW1, even if the south industrialized, it is too small to ever have anything matching the US' in 1917, and I don't know if the CS could provide the kind of forces needed to break the lines in Europe.  Especially with so many needed back home to prevent civil war.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2014, 02:02:02 PM »

And even in an alternate universe where the South does win its independence back in the 1860s, there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have eventually industrialized and modernized in a way that would make into a world player.

It's not that easy. Keep in mind that the USA has a huge industrial head start and the CSA would have to maintain a large military along the CSA/USA border constantly. There is actually every reason to believe it would not modernize and become a world player.

A.) It's not as easy as "just modernizing". The USA head start and greater population/resources/everything gives them an institutional advantage that the CSA will never overcome. Also keep in mind the social structure of the South isn't really "built" (if you will) for large-scale industrialization.

B.) From day one the USA will have a vastly superior navy and the CSA will never have the industrial base to modernize and build a large, blue water navy capable of defeating the USN, never mind projecting power globally.

C.) The CSA will consist of the original Confederate states, and maybe OK, NM, and AZ. That's it. Everything else goes to the USA. Why? Because literally the only way the South wins is if the Union throws in the towel for domestic political reasons. The CSA will be in no position to make any sort of demands whatsoever other then "independence".

D.) As a result of factors gone over in "C", the USA industrial base, even if the South somehow "modernizes" will still be probably dozens and dozens of times stronger then the CSA.

European powers would have had a vested interest in seeing the CSA succeed, as it means a weaker United States, and would have supported it financially and militarily until it was able to stand on its on.

Even if France and Britain give aid to the CSA (which I doubt to begin with, frankly) the other factors still outweigh it. It's not like either of them is going to go as far as guaranteeing their independence or anything. They are more worried about the rise of Prussia in Europe to risk a war with the USA which would just result in Britain losing Canada totally and the destruction of the CSA.

Also, with a notably less Anglo population due to the South having seceded, the United States probably doesn't come to the Allies aid during WWI and the CSA takes on the role as Western Europe's premier American ally.     

I'm sorry, but that's just utterly, laughably absurd.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2014, 02:03:20 PM »

Again with this tariffs nonsense? It's getting gross.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2014, 02:16:20 PM »

The South would have much ethnic stronger ties to Great Britain than the U.S., that's for sure, and that could translate into some, well, interesting things.

And everything you said could just as easily be applied to the U.S. after the Revolutionary War:  no Navy, small army, uncentralized economy and government.  And its not like the U.S. had to maintain a huge military on the Canadian border from the git-go because they feared the UK re-invading.  In fact, if we imagine the POD being a Confederate victory at Sharpsburg (Antietam) then its quite imaginable that the South could win quite decisively.    

Logged
Maistre
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2014, 02:50:11 PM »

Slavery is only a reason for the war as it was the reason for the initial secession of the first six states (SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA). It is worth noting though that the vote for secession in even a number of these Deep South states were extremely close (see Georgia and Alabama in particular), and of course the vote failed outright in the Upper South. It was only after Lincoln decided to invade the South that the 'moderates' came around to secession in order to help defend their fellow southern states.

Look at a map of Tennessee in it's vote on secession for a good example. In February it failed, but after Lincoln called up troops, it passed with a pretty heavy vote (except in East Tennessee).



Also, it is near impossible to speculate on the economy of a victorious Confederacy for obvious reasons.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2014, 02:57:56 PM »

Even in a peaceful secession, the Confederacy would be a 3rd world country from day one.

Ummm...not even close.

If you took the states that seceded and imagine them asa new country, it would be the world's 4th largest economy with a nominal GDP of 4.86 trillion per year.  That makes it larger than the "First world" countries of Germany, France, the UK and Canada.  With a population of 101 million people (which would make it the world's 12th most populous country, and bump the U.S. down to the number 4 spot) it would have a GDP/capita of $48,118 per year.  This puts the CSA in the 7th spot with a higher GDP/capita than Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Kuwait and Denmark to name a few.  Also with an annual GDP growth rate of 3.2% per year, I'd say that a modern-day CSA would be doing quite well by international standards.

Hardly a Third World country in my book.  Wouldn't you agree?


I can't tell if this post is serious or not.  I find that quite worrying.


If we're getting a second Civil War in 2014, then its obviously not being fought over slavery or Jim Crow.

Why would I want the South - one of the best and most unique cultural regions in the entire world - to be in a country where its historically been marginalized?  The South of the 21st Century is nothing to be afraid or ashamed of, and its independence is probably a blessing in disguise for both the USA and the new CSA.    

  

The South is prosperous to the extent that it has abandoned Jim Crow practices.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2014, 03:02:29 PM »

The South would have much ethnic stronger ties to Great Britain than the U.S., that's for sure, and that could translate into some, well, interesting things.

I don't know if this would amount to anything. Keep in mind there would be domestic political consequences for Britain being allied with the only remaining "Western" power still using legal chattel slavery.

And everything you said could just as easily be applied to the U.S. after the Revolutionary War:  no Navy, small army, uncentralized economy and government.

The situations are massively different and in this discussion we have the gift of hindsight. The 1790's are very different from the 1860's/70's.

And its not like the U.S. had to maintain a huge military on the Canadian border from the git-go because they feared the UK re-invading.  In fact, if we imagine the POD being a Confederate victory at Sharpsburg (Antietam) then its quite imaginable that the South could win quite decisively.

The situation is again massively different. The USA and CSA are going to be hostile to each other to say the least and the mutual border will probably be highly militarized. Keep in mind in the pre-industrial times you mention (US not having to keep an army bordering Canada) armies were much smaller and required less constant industry on as big a scale as the "modern" armies of the 1860's and beyond.

Even with a victory at Antietam the CSA still isn't in a position to make demands of the Union other then "leave us alone". The superior economy of the Union just makes them impossible to really defeat from the CSA point of view. The longer the war goes on the more immense the Union superiority will become. The Souths only chance is a rapid, decisive victory early in the war and then settling for terms.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2014, 03:19:14 PM »

Except it doesn't even say that.

It clearly says that Lincoln would also invade if the federal government's property (such as, say, Fort Sumter) was tampered with.
Sorry, should've addressed that. First of all, even if the Federal government was rightfully pursuing the return of its properties, that still has nothing to do with slavery and hardly justified the all-out invasion of the South. There is clearly nothing wrong with attempting to defend one's home against an invading army attempting to occupy and destroy it, even if that army has the end goal of reclaiming its rightful property miles away.

Lincoln was less interested in actually reclaiming Federal property than he was in using it as a pretext to provoke war. For weeks prior to that incident, the Lincoln administration had assured South Carolina that the fort would be evacuated. However, instead of evacuating, Lincoln chose to send a convoy of warships to Charleston harbor and refused to meet with Confederate diplomats to discuss peaceful purchase or transfer of the installation, despite the fact that the Confederates were willing to fully pay the Union in full for all Federal installations. He successfully provoked the South Carolinian militias in the area to fire the first shot, thus serving as a pretext for invasion.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Whatever his other war aims were, the abolition of slavery was clearly not among them, given his support for the constitutional protection of Southern slavery.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, maybe this one from his second inaugural:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]
Note that in both of these quotes, Lincoln stresses that he is not opposed to the existence of slavery, only its extension. While I would agree with Nathan that this is clearly preferable to being an all-out proponent of slavery, it precludes the possibility that Lincoln invaded the South with the intent of abolishing slavery. To go back to the original point I was making in response to Alfred, even if you think that Lincoln was a closet abolitionist who was secretly planning to abolish slavery the whole time, individual Southerners (the majority of whom did not own slaves and had perfectly good reasons to support secession that had nothing to do with slavery) surely cannot be faulted for choosing to defend their homes against an invading army that, to their knowledge, had no intent to abolish slavery.

Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2014, 03:43:31 PM »

Except it doesn't even say that.

It clearly says that Lincoln would also invade if the federal government's property (such as, say, Fort Sumter) was tampered with.
Sorry, should've addressed that. First of all, even if the Federal government was rightfully pursuing the return of its properties, that still has nothing to do with slavery and hardly justified the all-out invasion of the South. There is clearly nothing wrong with attempting to defend one's home against an invading army attempting to occupy and destroy it, even if that army has the end goal of reclaiming its rightful property miles away.

Lincoln was less interested in actually reclaiming Federal property than he was in using it as a pretext to provoke war. For weeks prior to that incident, the Lincoln administration had assured South Carolina that the fort would be evacuated. However, instead of evacuating, Lincoln chose to send a convoy of warships to Charleston harbor and refused to meet with Confederate diplomats to discuss peaceful purchase or transfer of the installation, despite the fact that the Confederates were willing to fully pay the Union in full for all Federal installations. He successfully provoked the South Carolinian militias in the area to fire the first shot, thus serving as a pretext for invasion.

Lincoln's main aim after his inauguration was keeping the border states in the union. That's why he didn't actually make any moves to regain federal property. He did, as he had to do, try to hold onto what the Federal Government did hold, namely Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter.

The warships sent to Fort Sumter were purely to re enforce the fort, not to launch an invasion of Charleston Harbor.

Lincoln never said he was going to withdraw from Fort Sumter. Seward said something along those lines but Lincoln overruled him.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not initially, no, but that's irrelevant. Whether Lincoln wanted to abolish all slavery immediately does not impact whether the war was about slavery.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lincoln's war aims are irrelevant- although after Antietam he was very much an immediate abolitionist . The war was about slavery from the start.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2014, 03:52:31 PM »


That's just bravado.  Mostly.  I suspect that serious support for a modern insurrection would depend upon the circumstances.  There are many things that the government does now that I find deplorable, but none of makes me want to take up arms against the government.  Things would have to be pretty severe in order for me to support a war against the United States.  What if a fascist regime took control of the three branches of government and our liberties, even basic ones like free expression and the right to peaceably assemble, were outlawed?  What if the government systematically targeted some ethnic groups, say Arab Muslims, and put them into re-education camps?  I don't think I'd support a rebellion based on regionalism alone, and clearly a majority of Mississippians don't either.  I think that is what the 37% of Mississippi voters in this poll are supporting.  That is more just obstinacy--call it Southern Pride if you want--than anything else.  
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2014, 03:59:03 PM »

I'm not sure as to why the south would have to live in fear of northern revanchism in a hypothetical scenario where the CSA survived. First and foremost, I'm not really sure as to what incentives the US would have to invade the CS; whereas during the civil war it was a question of maintaining the credibility of the United States, should the US lose that war, that credibility will be out of the window anyway. Without that incentive, what incentives remain. To fight another bloody war (with the possible threat of foreign intervention, given that the Uk would certainly have recognised a victorious Confederacy), leading to further deaths and disruption, in exchange for what, governance of a large, rebellious tract of land (probably wracked by prolonged guerilla warfare), which would by then have an even more entrenched sense of its own nationality. Furthermore, there would probably be a very influential peace lobby in Union politics post-war, since a defeat (especially one in the early days of the war, a more likely scenario) would severely discredit the war lobby. I can imagine a situation developing that would be similar to the one between Britain and the Republic of Ireland; the British government fought hard to keep Ireland under control, but when we realised the game was up, independence came for the south and though hostility persisted, this never boiled over into actual war. Why? Because there was no clear cut incentive to do so, and I can imagine the same happening in the case of a Confederate victory.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2014, 04:00:01 PM »

Um...who wouldn't? If your home was actually going to be invaded, would you really choose to side with the invader? Well, maybe out of fear, but you don't have to admit that on a survey.

If I was a broke Mississippi white person, yes, of course I would choose the side of the Union as opposed to the side of the Slaveholders who have utterly ruined me economically and retarded industrialization (and thus a lightening of the drudgery of daily life) by their continued use of slave labor.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2014, 04:07:03 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2014, 04:13:42 PM by Emperor Scott »

Whether or not Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery misses the point entirely.  The real motives behind secession were evident and secession was inevitable from Lincoln's election.  Tariffs couldn't have been an issue for the South considering the backers of the Tariff of 1857 were primarily from Southern and agricultural states. Slavery was the dominating issue during the 1860 campaign and it was one the last three presidents had to deal with almost exclusively (obviously I'm being slightly hyperbolic here).  Whether Lincoln's ultimate goal was to preserve the Union or abolish slavery has no bearing on why the Civil War actually happened.  That much is proven by copious records of speeches, writings, formal declarations, and CSA state constitutions that have already been posted a thousand times on this site.  And no, the majority of Southerners did not own slaves, but that doesn't take away the fact that white supremacy was the key element that inspired revolt and that a number of Southerners (and some Northerners) were petrified at the very idea of living in black-majority states unless slavery was law.  Anything else is just a red herring.

In short, if slavery weren't an issue, the country probably wouldn't have broken into civil war, tariffs and other irrelevant crap be damned.

This article offers some nice perspectives on the same tired arguments we hear in every "MUH TARIFFS" thread, on top of everything else that was regurgitated.

At this point I'd like to politely escort our distinguished history scholars to a site with people more captivated by persons of their caliber.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2014, 05:03:55 PM »

Even in a peaceful secession, the Confederacy would be a 3rd world country from day one.

Ummm...not even close.

If you took the states that seceded and imagine them asa new country, it would be the world's 4th largest economy with a nominal GDP of 4.86 trillion per year.  That makes it larger than the "First world" countries of Germany, France, the UK and Canada.  With a population of 101 million people (which would make it the world's 12th most populous country, and bump the U.S. down to the number 4 spot) it would have a GDP/capita of $48,118 per year.  This puts the CSA in the 7th spot with a higher GDP/capita than Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Kuwait and Denmark to name a few.

Hardly a Third World country in my book.  Wouldn't you agree?

  
Assuming it gained independence in the Ciil War, it has an economy heavily based off agriculture, a vast segment of the society enslaved and treated pretty badly as well as a lot of poor whites.  The CSA is going to need to get its act together and start industrializing.  The US, meanwhile, will probably want the place back. The US can support a large standing army, and, with its immigration polciies, will continue growing.  The CS needs a large standing army, but if you spend all the money on that, you can't industrialize.  Without foreign gaurruntees to its defense, or assistance in industrializing, it will eventually economically collapse.  Likely, that will lead to full on slave revolts, or a revolution by the lower class white, wanting to not be poor as dirt.  Then, in a civil war, they will have to fend off the US.  It's survival just doesn't seem likely.

I think you are talking about two different things. (CSA seceding in 1860 vs. 2014)
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2014, 05:06:59 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2014, 05:36:23 PM by Deus Naturae »

Whether or not Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery misses the point entirely.  The real motives behind secession were evident and secession was inevitable from Lincoln's election.  Tariffs couldn't have been an issue for the South considering the backers of the Tariff of 1857 were primarily from Southern and agricultural states.
Probably because the Tariff of 1857 was a major tariff reduction. Lincoln campaigned heavily on his support for the Morrill Tariff of 1861, at that time still in Congress, which dramatically raised the average tariff rate from about 15% to about 37%, and was also supported strongly by Northern manufacturing interests. In the words of the Republican steel magnate Henry Carey, "Without out it [the protective tariff], Mr. Lincoln's administration will be dead before the the day of inauguration."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Hyperbolic is an understatement. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong and no historian will tell you any different. Tariffs, Federal land policy, corporate subsidies, internal improvement projects, and territorial expansions were all major issues. Just to be clear, I'm not denying that Southern politicians were racist slavery supporters. I'm simply arguing that Lincoln's intent in invading the South was not the abolition of slavery, but rather the enforcement of tariff laws.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Tariffs were most certainly not irrelevant. Like in almost all American wars of conquest, powerful monied interests were a driving force behind the invasion. Following the first wave of seceding States, many Northern newspapers and merchants called for peaceful coexistence, citing the threat that war would pose to trade between the North and Lower South. They quickly changed their tune when the Confederate Constitution was fully drafted in March 1861. It contained a clause forbidding the imposition of import tariffs, which would have forced the Union to lower tariff rates in order to compete with tariff-free Confederate ports. This prospect alarmed Northern manufacturing interests, and despite the multitude of Northern editorials advocating allowing the Lower South to secede, few if any of that nature can be found after March 1861. Powerful businessmen began writing letters to Lincoln extolling the necessity of preserving the Union, and most if not all Northern newspapers that had previously supported the Lower South's right of secession (such as the New York Times) quickly reversed their position.

That, combined with fact that Lincoln threatened invasion over the tariff issue specifically, should be proof enough that tariffs were hardly irrelevant.  

On top of all that, you've still yet to offer any evidence for your position: That Lincoln invaded the South with the intent of abolishing slavery. You need to at least do that much before you can attack my position as nonsense.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Nice one bro.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2014, 05:26:39 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2014, 05:31:01 PM by ChairmanSanchez »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2014, 05:34:19 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
I agree with the first paragraph.

But honestly, the south seceding today would lose many important areas, and its economy would eventually go down the drain and probably be peacefully reannexed by the US.
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2014, 05:39:51 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
I agree with the first paragraph.

But honestly, the south seceding today would lose many important areas, and its economy would eventually go down the drain and probably be peacefully reannexed by the US.
The South today is already a major hub of sex slavery. The CSA would probably replace Russia as the world's human trafficing center.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2014, 05:40:23 PM »

The thread name is not funny.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2014, 05:45:23 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

This is also silly. I feel no particular feeling towards New Jersey and would leave the state if it were to secede. I might act differently if New York City were to secede but I'm certainly not becoming a citizen of the "Republic of New York" or anything like that. I mean this is decidedly un-patriotic, it's not expected from a conservative.
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2014, 05:46:46 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
I agree with the first paragraph.

But honestly, the south seceding today would lose many important areas, and its economy would eventually go down the drain and probably be peacefully reannexed by the US.
The South today is already a major hub of sex slavery. The CSA would probably replace Russia as the world's human trafficing center.
I wonder what they would do with their stretch of the Texan border.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 12 queries.