Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.During the war, Lincoln by himself illegally made West Virginia a new state. And they could keep slavery.
Just one of many examples of Lincoln trashing the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.
Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.
And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.
In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.There’s been a lot of ignorant commentary lately about Donald Trump’s speculation that Andrew Jackson wouldn’t have let the Civil War happen. Doesn’t Trump know that Jackson died 16 years before Fort Sumter?!?
But Trump was right to point to Jackson’s successful handling of South Carolina’s secessionist movement in the 1830s, which was led by Jackson’s initial vice president, the formidable pro-slavery intellectual John C. Calhoun.
The ostensible subject was South Carolina being anti-tariff, but as Calhoun admitted privately in 1830, the ultimate cause was that South Carolina’s “peculiar domestick institution” had made South Carolina different enough that economic policy that was in the national interest would generally not be in South Carolina’s interest.
The crisis began around 1830 with a famous debate in the U.S. Senate between the southerner Hayne and the New Englander Webster:
The debate presented the fullest articulation of the differences over nullification, and 40,000 copies of Webster’s response, which concluded with “liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable”, were distributed nationwide.Jackson’s uncompromising stand in favor of Union, and willingness to use federal might on the side of nationalism, combined with his lack of enthusiasm for tariffs, gave him the opportunity to turn what had looked like a national crisis into routine political horse-trading, with tariffs being reduced enough to allow South Carolinians to climb down from the perch they had gotten out on.
Many people expected the states’ rights Jackson to side with Hayne. However once the debate shifted to secession and nullification, Jackson sided with Webster. On April 13, 1830 at the traditional Democratic Party celebration honoring Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, Jackson chose to make his position clear. In a battle of toasts, Hayne proposed, “The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States.” Jackson’s response, when his turn came, was, “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.” To those attending, the effect was dramatic. Calhoun would respond with his own toast, in a play on Webster’s closing remarks in the earlier debate, “The Union. Next to our liberty, the most dear.” Finally Martin Van Buren would offer, “Mutual forbearance and reciprocal concession. Through their agency the Union was established. The patriotic spirit from which they emanated will forever sustain it.”
Van Buren wrote in his autobiography of Jackson’s toast, “The veil was rent – the incantations of the night were exposed to the light of day.” Senator Thomas Hart Benton, in his memoirs, stated that the toast “electrified the country.”[67] Jackson would have the final words a few days later when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson’s reply was:
“ Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.
Jackson’s proteges, such as Sam Houston who had fought under Jackson during the War of 1812, and gone on to be governor of Tennessee, President of the Republic of Texas, and finally governor of Texas, tended to be exactly the type of pro-Union Southerners that Lincoln needed more of. In 1861, Houston was deposed as governor of Texas by secessionists because he refused to take a loyalty oath to the Confederacy.
Similarly, Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, a Jackson-like Tennessee Democrat pro-Union man, as his running mate in 1864.
My personal feeling is that a military confrontation between the Union and South Carolina, font of the ideology that a slave owning oligarchy was the highest form of society, was inevitable at some point in the 19th Century. The big question was how many other states would ally with the South Carolina firebreathers?
Jackson had adeptly kept Calhoun’s South Carolina malcontents isolated by focusing on the key issue of Union.
When it came to the crisis after the 1860 election, South Carolina seceded first, followed quickly by six deep Southern slave states that largely depended upon King Cotton.
But then nothing happened for months, with the other 8 slave states uncertain what to do. Unfortunately, Lincoln didn’t seem to perceive the significance of the national crisis, devoting much of his energy during his first six weeks in the White House to interviewing Republican volunteers seeking local postmaster jobs.
Lincoln’s unreadiness for the big time drove William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state, crazy. Seward put forward a plan to re-unite the Union by taking exception to how France and Spain were violating the Monroe Doctrine in response to internal American disarray by colonizing Mexico and the Dominican Republic, respectively. But Lincoln saw Seward’s clever idea as a personal diss and shut down all consideration of it.
Eventually, the Union managed to hang on to four slave states, including crucial Kentucky. But after Fort Sumter, it lost four states to the Confederacy, including Jackson’s old state of Tennessee, where much of the Civil War was fought, and, catastrophically, Virginia, which became the main battlefront. Virginia is further north than any other secessionist state, so it should have stayed in the Union with Kentucky and Missouri. But Lincoln’s belated initiatives to hold Virginia, such as offering Robert E. Lee command of the Union Army, didn’t come until after Virginia had finally voted for secession.
What should have been a quick war thus turned into a 4 year long ordeal that killed 750,000 Americans, largely fought in Jackson’s state of Tennessee and heavily Scots-Irish Virginia.
Moreover, the class ideology of Jacksonism tended to be averse to slavery. Calhounism favored a slave-owning oligarchy that had little need for a flourishing class of white yeomen, except to fight for the oligarchs. The Western-oriented populist Jeffersonian-Jacksonian mindset was largely about small farmers and remained an important force outside of cotton country.
Cotton plantations worked by slaves were so profitable in the deep South that the six Cotton Belt states followed South Carolina, but further north, the Jefferson/Jackson social matrix was stronger. For example, the furthest north Confederate state, Virginia, suffered secession by its hillbilly northwest into the Union state of West Virginia (another reason why belated secession by Virginia seems like such an avoidable tragedy).
A climate map of the United States shows that the rain-watered cotton belt runs out in East Texas, while independent farmers can flourish further west the further north you go. Inevitably, a pro-Western policy like Jackson’s is going to be unenthusiastic about slavery.
Seems to me that, as is usual, the war was more about $ than slavery. Had the South been "allowed" to keep slaves I think the war would have happened anyway. The end of slavery was a good thing, but the war was fought over other issues. imo of course.
Greg
Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.There’s been a lot of ignorant commentary lately about Donald Trump’s speculation that Andrew Jackson wouldn’t have let the Civil War happen. Doesn’t Trump know that Jackson died 16 years before Fort Sumter?!?
But Trump was right to point to Jackson’s successful handling of South Carolina’s secessionist movement in the 1830s, which was led by Jackson’s initial vice president, the formidable pro-slavery intellectual John C. Calhoun.
The ostensible subject was South Carolina being anti-tariff, but as Calhoun admitted privately in 1830, the ultimate cause was that South Carolina’s “peculiar domestick institution” had made South Carolina different enough that economic policy that was in the national interest would generally not be in South Carolina’s interest.
The crisis began around 1830 with a famous debate in the U.S. Senate between the southerner Hayne and the New Englander Webster:
The debate presented the fullest articulation of the differences over nullification, and 40,000 copies of Webster’s response, which concluded with “liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable”, were distributed nationwide.Jackson’s uncompromising stand in favor of Union, and willingness to use federal might on the side of nationalism, combined with his lack of enthusiasm for tariffs, gave him the opportunity to turn what had looked like a national crisis into routine political horse-trading, with tariffs being reduced enough to allow South Carolinians to climb down from the perch they had gotten out on.
Many people expected the states’ rights Jackson to side with Hayne. However once the debate shifted to secession and nullification, Jackson sided with Webster. On April 13, 1830 at the traditional Democratic Party celebration honoring Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, Jackson chose to make his position clear. In a battle of toasts, Hayne proposed, “The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States.” Jackson’s response, when his turn came, was, “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.” To those attending, the effect was dramatic. Calhoun would respond with his own toast, in a play on Webster’s closing remarks in the earlier debate, “The Union. Next to our liberty, the most dear.” Finally Martin Van Buren would offer, “Mutual forbearance and reciprocal concession. Through their agency the Union was established. The patriotic spirit from which they emanated will forever sustain it.”
Van Buren wrote in his autobiography of Jackson’s toast, “The veil was rent – the incantations of the night were exposed to the light of day.” Senator Thomas Hart Benton, in his memoirs, stated that the toast “electrified the country.”[67] Jackson would have the final words a few days later when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson’s reply was:
“ Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.
Jackson’s proteges, such as Sam Houston who had fought under Jackson during the War of 1812, and gone on to be governor of Tennessee, President of the Republic of Texas, and finally governor of Texas, tended to be exactly the type of pro-Union Southerners that Lincoln needed more of. In 1861, Houston was deposed as governor of Texas by secessionists because he refused to take a loyalty oath to the Confederacy.
Similarly, Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, a Jackson-like Tennessee Democrat pro-Union man, as his running mate in 1864.
My personal feeling is that a military confrontation between the Union and South Carolina, font of the ideology that a slave owning oligarchy was the highest form of society, was inevitable at some point in the 19th Century. The big question was how many other states would ally with the South Carolina firebreathers?
Jackson had adeptly kept Calhoun’s South Carolina malcontents isolated by focusing on the key issue of Union.
When it came to the crisis after the 1860 election, South Carolina seceded first, followed quickly by six deep Southern slave states that largely depended upon King Cotton.
But then nothing happened for months, with the other 8 slave states uncertain what to do. Unfortunately, Lincoln didn’t seem to perceive the significance of the national crisis, devoting much of his energy during his first six weeks in the White House to interviewing Republican volunteers seeking local postmaster jobs.
Lincoln’s unreadiness for the big time drove William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state, crazy. Seward put forward a plan to re-unite the Union by taking exception to how France and Spain were violating the Monroe Doctrine in response to internal American disarray by colonizing Mexico and the Dominican Republic, respectively. But Lincoln saw Seward’s clever idea as a personal diss and shut down all consideration of it.
Eventually, the Union managed to hang on to four slave states, including crucial Kentucky. But after Fort Sumter, it lost four states to the Confederacy, including Jackson’s old state of Tennessee, where much of the Civil War was fought, and, catastrophically, Virginia, which became the main battlefront. Virginia is further north than any other secessionist state, so it should have stayed in the Union with Kentucky and Missouri. But Lincoln’s belated initiatives to hold Virginia, such as offering Robert E. Lee command of the Union Army, didn’t come until after Virginia had finally voted for secession.
What should have been a quick war thus turned into a 4 year long ordeal that killed 750,000 Americans, largely fought in Jackson’s state of Tennessee and heavily Scots-Irish Virginia.
Moreover, the class ideology of Jacksonism tended to be averse to slavery. Calhounism favored a slave-owning oligarchy that had little need for a flourishing class of white yeomen, except to fight for the oligarchs. The Western-oriented populist Jeffersonian-Jacksonian mindset was largely about small farmers and remained an important force outside of cotton country.
Cotton plantations worked by slaves were so profitable in the deep South that the six Cotton Belt states followed South Carolina, but further north, the Jefferson/Jackson social matrix was stronger. For example, the furthest north Confederate state, Virginia, suffered secession by its hillbilly northwest into the Union state of West Virginia (another reason why belated secession by Virginia seems like such an avoidable tragedy).
A climate map of the United States shows that the rain-watered cotton belt runs out in East Texas, while independent farmers can flourish further west the further north you go. Inevitably, a pro-Western policy like Jackson’s is going to be unenthusiastic about slavery.
Seems to me that, as is usual, the war was more about $ than slavery. Had the South been "allowed" to keep slaves I think the war would have happened anyway. The end of slavery was a good thing, but the war was fought over other issues. imo of course.
Greg
Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
Oxymoron of the day?pro-slavery intellectual
^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.Seems to me that, as is usual, the war was more about $ than slavery. Had the South been "allowed" to keep slaves I think the war would have happened anyway. The end of slavery was a good thing, but the war was fought over other issues. imo of course.
Greg
Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
What an ignoramus -
Ignoramus gave me a smile because I was once called that by a black woman in Walmart's parking lot because I used two parking spaces. I said this is my new truck and don't want anybody to ding or dent it. She called me "ignoramus" and I only smiled back.
Pretty funny considering the "fascist intellectual" bullshit peddled on this forum.Oxymoron of the day?pro-slavery intellectual
Not at all. His assumptions are crap of course but he is logical. Just as the Marxist assumptions are crap but there are many so called "Marxist intellectuals". All an intellectual does is build on a set of assumptions. It is up to those examining those assumptions to tear down the arguments. Easy to do with both pro-slavers and marxists.
Greg
^The fascist viewpoint.^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
No; he blamed the Banks really but put in the Jew comment as there were many Jewish bankers. I don't think you can really do that but that is for him to clarify if I am wrong. I agree that Slavery was already on the way out but it's ending as a result of the war was hastened. Worth a near million dead? Not for me to decide that one. Keeping the US united? Maybe. But surely there was a better way.
Greg
Just pointing out your fascism.So?^alt-right in action.
Pretty funny considering the "fascist intellectual" bullshit peddled on this forum.Oxymoron of the day?pro-slavery intellectual
Not at all. His assumptions are crap of course but he is logical. Just as the Marxist assumptions are crap but there are many so called "Marxist intellectuals". All an intellectual does is build on a set of assumptions. It is up to those examining those assumptions to tear down the arguments. Easy to do with both pro-slavers and marxists.
Greg
^The fascist viewpoint.^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
No; he blamed the Banks really but put in the Jew comment as there were many Jewish bankers. I don't think you can really do that but that is for him to clarify if I am wrong. I agree that Slavery was already on the way out but it's ending as a result of the war was hastened. Worth a near million dead? Not for me to decide that one. Keeping the US united? Maybe. But surely there was a better way.
Greg
The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.During the war, Lincoln by himself illegally made West Virginia a new state. And they could keep slavery.
Just one of many examples of Lincoln trashing the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.
Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.
And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.
Just pointing out your fascism.So?^alt-right in action.
^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.Seems to me that, as is usual, the war was more about $ than slavery. Had the South been "allowed" to keep slaves I think the war would have happened anyway. The end of slavery was a good thing, but the war was fought over other issues. imo of course.
Greg
Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
The arguments being made are alt-right/fascist apologist bullshit propaganda.Pretty funny considering the "fascist intellectual" bullshit peddled on this forum.Oxymoron of the day?pro-slavery intellectual
Not at all. His assumptions are crap of course but he is logical. Just as the Marxist assumptions are crap but there are many so called "Marxist intellectuals". All an intellectual does is build on a set of assumptions. It is up to those examining those assumptions to tear down the arguments. Easy to do with both pro-slavers and marxists.
Greg
Well you should be attacking the ASSUMPTIONS of the arguments being made. Or don't you understand them? Don't be intellectually lazy.
Greg
There wasn't a ruling before the war. If there was the result would have been the same. Secession was illegal. You, like the south, lose bud.The supreme court disagrees, there is no legal basis for a state to secede. The articles of confederation explicitly state the Union is perpetual. The traitor/slaver states lost their illegal war for slavery.Alternative history. States seceded illegally. Lincoln preserved the union. He is one of our best presidents. Sorry but the confederacy was rightfully stomped to abolish their slavery.During the war, Lincoln by himself illegally made West Virginia a new state. And they could keep slavery.
Just one of many examples of Lincoln trashing the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.
Wrong. There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact the USA was born of secession from England.
And when the Civil War was over, some Union States still had slavery.
The Supreme Court only ruled against secession after the war was over.
What an ignoramus -
Ignoramus gave me a smile because I was once called that by a black woman in Walmart's parking lot because I used two parking spaces. I said this is my new truck and don't want anybody to ding or dent it. She called me "ignoramus" and I only smiled back.
She was wrong for calling you an ignoramous. Taking up 2 parking spots to "protect" your new truck is not ignorant. No, it's the act of a arrogant asshole. I know people who key those cars when they are parked anywhere near the front of the store, and I understand why they do it.
You should be shunning alt-right aholes just like antifa should be shunned by dems.^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
And this is a perfect example of lefties trying to lump Anti-semites with Republicans and normal conservatives/libertarians.
