Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[paperview]

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

I'll wager I've served on more military installations than you have. South Carolina wasn't a state, it was a sovereign nation. I can't dumb it down any further for you.

Too bad the reality of the Civil War fucked that all over for you. eh?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Fellow, we kicked your ass in the 1860's, we can do so again. One nation, indivisable. Then and now.

Old Rocks is gonna don his dentures and go chew some ass!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

I'll wager I've served on more military installations than you have. South Carolina wasn't a state, it was a sovereign nation. I can't dumb it down any further for you.

Too bad the reality of the Civil War fucked that all over for you. eh?

You sure are celebratory over 600K people dead due to a tyrant, aren't you?

 

[Toro]

Your belief that the South could have only exported manufactured goods to the Union is laughable, to say the least. Furthermore, slavery would have ended rapidly in the South if they had been allowed to secede because slaves could easily have escaped to the Union. It's hard to keep slaves when they get away so easily. Your belief that everything would have been the same until 1980 is almost comical. If there wasn't a Civil War, then the U.S. would never have entered WW I, it if ever occurred, and there probably wouldn't have been a WW II. The world would be so different today that it's hard to imagine.

In short, your theory is groundless caca.

If you think I'm saying things would have stayed the same up until the 1980s, then you don't understand the argument, which isn't surprising.

Tariffs on manufactured goods around the world averaged 40% up until WWII, and began to decline thereafter. However, they were roughly 20%-25% c1960. Those tariffs would have been applied to the Confederacy. Therefore, the cost structure of manufacturing would have made it prohibitive for manufacturers to move South in the 1960s and 1970s. But because the tariff was 0% as part of the union, they could move south. Also, there would have been no migration from the north to the south, which means the internal market of the South would have been smaller.

The idea that slavery would have ended rapidly had the Civil War not taken place because "they could have escaped to the union" is one of the most retarded arguments ever. That would have been true regardless if the South stayed in the Union or not.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your belief that the South could have only exported manufactured goods to the Union is laughable, to say the least. Furthermore, slavery would have ended rapidly in the South if they had been allowed to secede because slaves could easily have escaped to the Union. It's hard to keep slaves when they get away so easily. Your belief that everything would have been the same until 1980 is almost comical. If there wasn't a Civil War, then the U.S. would never have entered WW I, it if ever occurred, and there probably wouldn't have been a WW II. The world would be so different today that it's hard to imagine.

In short, your theory is groundless caca.

If you think I'm saying things would have stayed the same up until the 1980s, then you don't understand the argument, which isn't surprising.

Tariffs on manufactured goods around the world averaged 40% up until WWII, and began to decline thereafter. However, they were roughly 20%-25% c1960. Those tariffs would have been applied to the Confederacy. Therefore, the cost structure of manufacturing would have made it prohibitive for manufacturers to move South in the 1960s and 1970s. But because the tariff was 0% as part of the union, they could move south. Also, there would have been no migration from the north to the south, which means the internal market of the South would have been smaller.

The idea that slavery would have ended rapidly had the Civil War not taken place because "they could have escaped to the union" is one of the most retarded arguments ever. That would have been true regardless if the South stayed in the Union or not.

How would they have applied to the confederacy if they were an independent nation that could set its own tariff policy?

 

[Toro]

How would they have applied to the confederacy if they were an independent nation that could set its own tariff policy?

The plants in Ohio, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. that moved to the South would have been subject to tariffs. Therefore, the migration of manufacturing would have at best been delayed because companies would have been incentivized to not move South.

Think about it. Tariffs on global traded goods in the US were about 25% (or therabouts) in 1960. The reason why companies moved South was because it was cheaper to operate there. But it wouldn't have been cheaper if their costs were 25% higher than they otherwise would have been.

Eventually, tariff rates would have fallen as agreements such as GATT and the WTO lowered global trade barriers around the world, but by that time, its fair to assume that at least some of that manufacturing would have moved to Mexico or Asia rather than the South.

The United States would also have been hurt too, but not nearly as much as the South as there is a deadweight cost to trade barriers. But since the internal market of the United States was bigger than the Confederacy by multiples, the South would have been bigger losers.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How would they have applied to the confederacy if they were an independent nation that could set its own tariff policy?

The plants in Ohio, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. that moved to the South would have been subject to tariffs. Therefore, the migration of manufacturing would have at best been delayed because companies would have been incentivized to not move South.

Think about it. Tariffs on global traded goods in the US were about 25% (or therabouts) in 1960. The reason why companies moved South was because it was cheaper to operate there. But it wouldn't have been cheaper if their costs were 25% higher than they otherwise would have been.

Eventually, tariff rates would have fallen as agreements such as GATT and the WTO lowered global trade barriers around the world, but by that time, its fair to assume that at least some of that manufacturing would have moved to Mexico or Asia rather than the South.

The United States would also have been hurt too, but not nearly as much as the South as there is a deadweight cost to trade barriers. But since the internal market of the United States was bigger than the Confederacy by multiples, the South would have been bigger losers.

You keep applying static thinking instead of dynamic adaptation. You assume that the South was incapable of developing it's own industrial base because of it's economic schematic prior to the war. A sovereign nation moves very quickly to attain self sufficiency and the Confederate States would have too. If you were a better student of history, you'd know that Great Britain made those same exact prognostications about the United States after it won its independence, and just like so many that root against the underdog, you included, they were spectacularly wrong.

Dynamic. Not static.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So the souths only manufactured good consumer would have been the north......that seems logical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

paperview, stmike can no more defend slvery and the Civil War than he can hetero-fascism. He acts like a punk writer, and a very poor one, for "Western Journalism", I think (much of his material comes from there). I have no idea if he is, but if so, the rag is wasting its money on him.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So the souths only manufactured good consumer would have been the north......that seems logical.

To a static thinker, yes, that would be logical.

 

[toxicmedia]

The pro-CSA loons are hysterical and hilarious.

No state had the right to secede.

SC had no legal right to interfere with the US transactions with its people in its own property (no, the property was not SC, it gave that right up).

The South rebelled and was executed rightfully by the North.

The shit you sycophants say is just deplorable. Not that it is shocking. Especially from a progressive authoritarian like you, Fake.

I've not seen such a sound thrashing on this board in a while.

It would be generous to describe slavery apologists in this thread as being on their heels.

Slavery was the reason the southern states militarily seized, and attacked, sovereign US territory.

They got what they deserved when Sherman made Georgia howl, and crushed their will to fight.

Now the descendants of slavers are Tea Partiers, Fox News Republicans, Stormfront members, and socially Conservative Evangelicals, who have revised their own history, and in many cases educational curriculum to suit their denial of reality.

The New Deal and the 60's revolution turned these intellectually filthy confederates into Pariahs, but if Fox News and the GOP have their way, they'll unfortunately feel good enough about themselves to do something stupid again, and create some neo-lost cause that will damage the United States

Who's advocating slavery? Did you just tell a lie?

Stop lying, Leftists!

An apologist usually apologizes for something his side, or someone on his/her side, has done, or thinks.

In this case...many of the righties on this site try to minimize slavery, and the southern justifications for secession, which cited the North's opposition to slavery as the main reason for secession.

Basically justifying secession and contemporary racial discrimination towards blacks.

 

[toxicmedia]

Tariffs had been declining prior to the Civil War, due primarily to Southern opposition. They went up when the South seceded.

How could tariffs be increased if they couldn't pass through the Senate?

Wrong question. You're claiming that the South had no legitimate gripe and just decided to secede for no reason. Since that idiocy came from you, it's up to you to defend it.

Are we still talking about those traitors? They were lucky they weren't lined up against a wall and shot. The leaders at the least.

Wanting to leave is treason? That's all they did was leave. Treason was Herr Lincoln Über Alles drawing up 75,000 troops and invading those states. He should have been shot.

Oh wait....he was!

They didn't have the authority to "leave" if that meant seizing American territory and calling it their own.

If they wanted to leave, they should have gone to Mexico or Canada, but wait! they didn't allow slavery either.

 

[Unkotare]

The South didn't start the war. Lincoln did.

You can squat in the corner hitting yourself in the head with a mallet and repeating that over and over as long as you want, but you can't make it true.

That's what you do? ...

I see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved at all.

 

[Toro]

You keep applying static thinking instead of dynamic adaptation. You assume that the South was incapable of developing it's own industrial base because of it's economic schematic prior to the war. A sovereign nation moves very quickly to attain self sufficiency and the Confederate States would have too. If you were a better student of history, you'd know that Great Britain made those same exact prognostications about the United States after it won its independence, and just like so many that root against the underdog, you included, they were spectacularly wrong.

Dynamic. Not static.

Static thinking is that the economic outcomes from the South wouldn't have been much different had the South left peacefully.

Why do you necessarily assume that your "dynamic" thinking would have resulted in a more positive outcome for the South rather than a more negative one than I have postulated? Why couldn't it have been worse?

If you were a better student of economic history, you would realize that countries most definitely do NOT attain anything near self-sufficiency. Instead, the trajectory of the world economy is for more integration and specialization, resulting in increased trade, as first articulated by David Ricardo and the Theory of Comparative Advantage. It means that as an independent country, the Confederacy would have been less likely to have grown it's industrial capacity, not more.

If you were a better student of economic history, you would also understand that there is no first world country today that had an economic base which relied upon slavery for its output. Europe didn't. Japan didn't. Canada didn't. Australia didn't. Even the United States didn't. But the South did. Economies which relied upon slave labor were generally economically stunted, and did not grow as fast as the first world did. That's not surprising, given that slave economies discouraged urbanization and development.

 

[Toro]

So the souths only manufactured good consumer would have been the north......that seems logical.

Not the only one but certainly the most important one since it was the closest.

 

[reconmark]

And the North wasn't so much anti-slavery, as the were Pro-Union.

The North went to war to keep the Union together.

The South went to war to preserve, protect, defend, and expand Slavery.

So you're admitting that slavery was NOT a reason why the Union went to war? That's what I was looking for. Thanks!

I don't have to admit anything. I never claimed slavery was the reason the North went to war.

Any student of history knows that.

The North went to war to keep the Union together.

The South went to war to preserve, protect, defend, and expand Slavery.

You sounded intelligent all the way up until that last sentence which converted you to dumbass.

Actually you should look in a mirror right about now...

 

[Unkotare]

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.


Let's see....United States Supreme Court, or some bitter, weak-minded imbecile on the internet...which has more credibility? Hmmmm........

Anyone who puts stock in what the Supreme Court rules is a weak minded imbecile. ...

What a shame you flunked out before getting to Civics.

 

[Unkotare]

The South didn't start the war. Lincoln did.

You can squat in the corner hitting yourself in the head with a mallet and repeating that over and over as long as you want, but you can't make it true.

The fact that it is true is what makes it true. .

Supplementing the mallet with acid, you delusional dimwit?

 

[reconmark]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

Had the Confederacy won, they probably would have turned into a second world backwater, a pariah state shunned by everyone else, like South Africa.

Socialist theory postulates that America's wealth was built on slavery, but that isn't true. Slavery stunted Southern economic and social development. It reinforced an agrarian society that discouraged urban development, and thus higher education and innovation. There would have been no migration from the rust belt to the sun belt. There most likely would have been no relocation of industry from the Northeast to the South. The South would have been a commodity agriculture, and poorer had they left, at least until the 1970s and the creation of OPEC.

Since they lost, the South was able to remain in the largest, most dynamic economy the world has ever seen, and they benefited from the transition of the manufacturing economy from the north to the south.

...by 1860, there were more millionaires (slaveholders all) living in the lower Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the United States. In the same year, the nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion, making them the largest single financial asset in the entire U.S. economy, worth more than all manufacturing and railroads combined. So, of course, the war was rooted in these two expanding and competing economies—but competing over what? What eventually tore asunder America's political culture was slavery's expansion into the Western territories.
Battle Cry of Freedom

Get a clue...

 

[bripat9643]

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

I'll wager I've served on more military installations than you have. South Carolina wasn't a state, it was a sovereign nation. I can't dumb it down any further for you.

Too bad the reality of the Civil War fucked that all over for you. eh?

You sure are celebratory over 600K people dead due to a tyrant, aren't you?

The lust expressed by these "compassionate" liberals to see Southern blood spilled is really quite remarkable, don't you think? These people who claim to believe in the Bill of Rights, peace, non violence and tolerance chuck it all out the window the minute secession is mentioned.