Confedrate history about race?

[bodecea]

You're a dumbass.

Yet not as dumb as someone who went on about photos of black Union soldiers and saying they were black Confederate soldiers when anyone can see whose uniforms they were wearing.

I see you're still whining.

Is that what you call whining? Pointing out your stupidity?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Moreover, in that broadside, Davis proclaimed that all Negroes who were captured in states where slavery did not exist were to be adjudged to occupy the status of slaves,

"...so that the respective normal condition of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis."

Any of these neo-confederates starts to tell you the South had any intention of before, during the war, or long after - of getting rid of slavery - or allowing it to "die out" Remind them of this declaration by the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis.

It really wouldn't matter if they had any intention of letting it die out or not, as their economy began to change the slavery would no longer make sense and die out naturally as it did in the northern states.

 

[bodecea]

Once again, slave-owners were a minority in the south and the tariffs hurt everyone.

The slave-holders were a minority in number only...they held almost all the political and social power....and perhaps you'd like to go on and on about the fruits of THEIR labor again?

I have absolutely no problem defending the rights of the people to the fruit of their labor, once again making the point that slave-owners were a minority which you acknowledged. This means that a majority of those harmed by the tariffs were not slave-owners, and thus had a right to the fruits of their labor. Trying to lump me in as some supporter of slavery is quite dishonest of you.

How would tariffs have hurt the small farm owners of the South?

 

[Againsheila]

In the 1870s and 1880s, the decoration of Confederate graves with flowers and flags and celebratory speeches and parades increasingly signaled a commitment to what came to be called the "Lost Cause," a decidedly partisan and self-consciously politicized account of the Civil War.

Confederate history is about race - CNN.com

Apologists seeking to turn their treasonous war FOR SLAVERY into something noble like States Rights.

The only RIGHT they really cared about was having and advancing slavery, of course.

Furthermore, the "Lost Cause" supporters were the ones creating the KKK. That was NOTHING about race, was it?

Um, there were black members of the KKK, believe it or not. Better yet, google it, I didn't believe it either until I googled it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The slave-holders were a minority in number only...they held almost all the political and social power....and perhaps you'd like to go on and on about the fruits of THEIR labor again?

I have absolutely no problem defending the rights of the people to the fruit of their labor, once again making the point that slave-owners were a minority which you acknowledged. This means that a majority of those harmed by the tariffs were not slave-owners, and thus had a right to the fruits of their labor. Trying to lump me in as some supporter of slavery is quite dishonest of you.

How would tariffs have hurt the small farm owners of the South?

Being agricultural, they had to purchase most of their industrial goods from either overseas or from the north because they weren't producing them themselves, and tariffs force you to pay higher prices for lesser or equal value goods. So if the foreign goods were really cheaper than northern goods, but a tariff was placed on them, the southerners had to pay more for those goods than they otherwise would have to. This benefits the north at the expense of the south. Then not to mention Lincoln was entirely beholden to northern special interests so he was obviously going to focus his "internal improvements" campaign in the north to please the people that elected him so even more of the tariffs the south paid would go to the benefit of the north.

 

[bodecea]

I have absolutely no problem defending the rights of the people to the fruit of their labor, once again making the point that slave-owners were a minority which you acknowledged. This means that a majority of those harmed by the tariffs were not slave-owners, and thus had a right to the fruits of their labor. Trying to lump me in as some supporter of slavery is quite dishonest of you.

How would tariffs have hurt the small farm owners of the South?

Being agricultural, they had to purchase most of their industrial goods from either overseas or from the north because they weren't producing them themselves, and tariffs force you to pay higher prices for lesser or equal value goods. So if the foreign goods were really cheaper than northern goods, but a tariff was placed on them, the southerners had to pay more for those goods than they otherwise would have to. This benefits the north at the expense of the south. Then not to mention Lincoln was entirely beholden to northern special interests so he was obviously going to focus his "internal improvements" campaign in the north to please the people that elected him so even more of the tariffs the south paid would go to the benefit of the north.

You realize that most small farmers were buying local or from mail order places like Sears and Montgomery Ward (yes they were around). The tariffs affected the LARGE...RICH plantation owners who had agents in Europe negotiating cotton for European goods.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How would tariffs have hurt the small farm owners of the South?

Being agricultural, they had to purchase most of their industrial goods from either overseas or from the north because they weren't producing them themselves, and tariffs force you to pay higher prices for lesser or equal value goods. So if the foreign goods were really cheaper than northern goods, but a tariff was placed on them, the southerners had to pay more for those goods than they otherwise would have to. This benefits the north at the expense of the south. Then not to mention Lincoln was entirely beholden to northern special interests so he was obviously going to focus his "internal improvements" campaign in the north to please the people that elected him so even more of the tariffs the south paid would go to the benefit of the north.

You realize that most small farmers were buying local or from mail order places like Sears and Montgomery Ward (yes they were around). The tariffs affected the LARGE...RICH plantation owners who had agents in Europe negotiating cotton for European goods.

They were buying industrial goods from their local agricultural economy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

States' rights was merely a theme of the Civil War. Read Vice-president Stepehns "Cornerstone Speech" from March 1861, which clearly subordinates states rights to slavery.

Read President Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address, which doesn't even mention slavery.

So what? That means nothing when other addresses and the states' various papers say that slavery is the reason for the war. The Southerners of the time were right and you are wrong today.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

States' rights was merely a theme of the Civil War. Read Vice-president Stepehns "Cornerstone Speech" from March 1861, which clearly subordinates states rights to slavery.

Read President Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address, which doesn't even mention slavery.

So what? That means nothing when other addresses and the states' various papers say that slavery is the reason for the war. The Southerners of the time were right and you are wrong today.

But the southerners of the time, Jefferson Davis in his Inaugural Address, specifically mention tariffs. Which means that tariffs were absolutely an issue.

 

[bodecea]

Read President Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address, which doesn't even mention slavery.

So what? That means nothing when other addresses and the states' various papers say that slavery is the reason for the war. The Southerners of the time were right and you are wrong today.

But the southerners of the time, Jefferson Davis in his Inaugural Address, specifically mention tariffs. Which means that tariffs were absolutely an issue.

It certainly makes for a good hook to bring in the non-slaveholding masses who are going to be doing your blood work for you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So what? That means nothing when other addresses and the states' various papers say that slavery is the reason for the war. The Southerners of the time were right and you are wrong today.

But the southerners of the time, Jefferson Davis in his Inaugural Address, specifically mention tariffs. Which means that tariffs were absolutely an issue.

It certainly makes for a good hook to bring in the non-slaveholding masses who are going to be doing your blood work for you.

They didn't need to be "brought" in, they were feeling the effects of tariffs firsthand and wanted nothing more than to be free of them.

 

[bodecea]

But the southerners of the time, Jefferson Davis in his Inaugural Address, specifically mention tariffs. Which means that tariffs were absolutely an issue.

It certainly makes for a good hook to bring in the non-slaveholding masses who are going to be doing your blood work for you.

They didn't need to be "brought" in, they were feeling the effects of tariffs firsthand and wanted nothing more than to be free of them.

Total bs. The tariffs specifically affected those who did mega-business with Europe thru the medium of cotton. That was not the small farmers who most likely never owned anything European at all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It certainly makes for a good hook to bring in the non-slaveholding masses who are going to be doing your blood work for you.

They didn't need to be "brought" in, they were feeling the effects of tariffs firsthand and wanted nothing more than to be free of them.

Total bs. The tariffs specifically affected those who did mega-business with Europe thru the medium of cotton. That was not the small farmers who most likely never owned anything European at all.

You're right it hurt the large plantations as well, but to say the smaller farmers wouldn't have bought anything imported from Europe even without the tariffs is ridiculous.

 

[bodecea]

They didn't need to be "brought" in, they were feeling the effects of tariffs firsthand and wanted nothing more than to be free of them.

Total bs. The tariffs specifically affected those who did mega-business with Europe thru the medium of cotton. That was not the small farmers who most likely never owned anything European at all.

You're right it hurt the large plantations as well, but to say the smaller farmers wouldn't have bought anything imported from Europe even without the tariffs is ridiculous.

Really? How would they have done so? Pray tell.

 

[JakeStarkey]

90% of the capital invested directly and indirectly supported the cotton kingdom in the South. Some diversification existed but only in support of slave monocultural crops. The base cause, of course, was slavery, and the tariff was a symptom of that root cause, as was states' rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Total bs. The tariffs specifically affected those who did mega-business with Europe thru the medium of cotton. That was not the small farmers who most likely never owned anything European at all.

You're right it hurt the large plantations as well, but to say the smaller farmers wouldn't have bought anything imported from Europe even without the tariffs is ridiculous.

Really? How would they have done so? Pray tell.

Just because you can't afford a huge plantation or slaves doesn't mean you can't afford other goods.

 

[bodecea]

You're right it hurt the large plantations as well, but to say the smaller farmers wouldn't have bought anything imported from Europe even without the tariffs is ridiculous.

Really? How would they have done so? Pray tell.

Just because you can't afford a huge plantation or slaves doesn't mean you can't afford other goods.

Other goods is not necessarily European goods. American goods were cheaper, in some cases better, and easier to get. If I'm a farmer dealing in small crops, I'm going to be dealing with the local storekeep who is hardly going to be chock full of European goods. For those, you had to look to the big plantations....but, please continue on with your fantasy of Johnny Reb, small farmer, being in the European goods market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? How would they have done so? Pray tell.

Just because you can't afford a huge plantation or slaves doesn't mean you can't afford other goods.

Other goods is not necessarily European goods. American goods were cheaper, in some cases better, and easier to get. If I'm a farmer dealing in small crops, I'm going to be dealing with the local storekeep who is hardly going to be chock full of European goods. For those, you had to look to the big plantations....but, please continue on with your fantasy of Johnny Reb, small farmer, being in the European goods market.

If the American goods were better and cheaper then they wouldn't need tariffs in the first place now would they?

 

[bodecea]

Just because you can't afford a huge plantation or slaves doesn't mean you can't afford other goods.

Other goods is not necessarily European goods. American goods were cheaper, in some cases better, and easier to get. If I'm a farmer dealing in small crops, I'm going to be dealing with the local storekeep who is hardly going to be chock full of European goods. For those, you had to look to the big plantations....but, please continue on with your fantasy of Johnny Reb, small farmer, being in the European goods market.

If the American goods were better and cheaper then they wouldn't need tariffs in the first place now would they?

For the average person, that is true...but (and pay attention now), Southern planters would ship their cotton to Europe where that cotton would be traded for European goods. It was easier for them and the perception was that only European goods were good enough for their plantation mansions. (See George Washington for an early example of that) Most major planters had agents stations in London and other cities and they would literally get shopping lists from their clients as to how much they should be getting for their cotton and converting into the items on the shopping lists....fine cloth and furniture in particular. All fine and dandy, but the Southern plantation owners objected to the Tariff even tho they were rolling in $$$, Why you may ask? Because all taxes had to be paid in gold and Planters were usually land, slave and cotton rich but gold poor. They didn't like having to convert to pay a tax...particularly a tax they saw no benefit from. They didn't give a rat's ass for any American industry. They were bitching about that all the way back since Henry Clay's American System.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Other goods is not necessarily European goods. American goods were cheaper, in some cases better, and easier to get. If I'm a farmer dealing in small crops, I'm going to be dealing with the local storekeep who is hardly going to be chock full of European goods. For those, you had to look to the big plantations....but, please continue on with your fantasy of Johnny Reb, small farmer, being in the European goods market.

If the American goods were better and cheaper then they wouldn't need tariffs in the first place now would they?

For the average person, that is true...but (and pay attention now), Southern planters would ship their cotton to Europe where that cotton would be traded for European goods. It was easier for them and the perception was that only European goods were good enough for their plantation mansions. (See George Washington for an early example of that) Most major planters had agents stations in London and other cities and they would literally get shopping lists from their clients as to how much they should be getting for their cotton and converting into the items on the shopping lists....fine cloth and furniture in particular. All fine and dandy, but the Southern plantation owners objected to the Tariff even tho they were rolling in $$$, Why you may ask? Because all taxes had to be paid in gold and Planters were usually land, slave and cotton rich but gold poor. They didn't like having to convert to pay a tax...particularly a tax they saw no benefit from. They didn't give a rat's ass for any American industry. They were bitching about that all the way back since Henry Clay's American System.

Oh so it was just their PERCEPTION that European goods were better?

And yes the south complained about high tariffs all the way back to Henry Clay's American System, which Lincoln supported, including those poor southern farmers you say weren't affected by the tariffs at all. But it's odd they'd get so angry about something that didn't affect them, don't you think?

As for supporting American industry, protectionism is simply bad economics on top of being immoral. Free trade is better for everyone involved, producers and consumers.