I didn't know this

[Gdjjr]

I wish I could link this to the Constitution forum- it's an interesting bit of History that high lights the constitution.
It illustrates (without a lot of imagination) how the country has been divided from the get- go. The North vs the South.
This article lays out a precursor to the unCivil War- the constitution. Not the authors thought, but my own. It's not surprising but it is enlightening.


The Founding Fathers' Coup d'État

The revolution of 1776–1781 converted thirteen provinces, practically as they stood, into thirteen autonomous political units, completely independent, and they so continued until 1789, formally held together as a sort of league, by the Articles of Confederation. For our purposes, the point to be remarked about this eight-year period,


The northern war of aggression was economic- the South was more of an agricultural place and the "moneyed" in the North(east) couldn't compete simply due to terrain and climate- so, money did what it has always done- force its way into control. This article points out the troubles with the constitution being ratified and how it came about- moneyed vs farmers-

 

[Gdjjr]

The *divide*, if you will, extrapolated into Republican (Northeast) and Democrat (southern)- it appears the Republicans wanted a system similar to that of Britain. The Democrats didn't. Money vs Farmers. It could be, as I've pointed out numerous times that "conservatives" (Republicans) sided with the King of Britain and Liberals (Democrats) didn't-

Personally, I'm a libertarian with "originalist" views. So, don't go there with a personal attack.

In the end, we wound up with a fairly altruistic document- it's pretty obvious though, that altruism is not the same as altruistic and the lens it's read through determines how the prism breaks up and/or bends the light.

 

[Votto]

The *divide*, if you will, extrapolated into Republican (Northeast) and Democrat (southern)- it appears the Republicans wanted a system similar to that of Britain. The Democrats didn't. Money vs Farmers. It could be, as I've pointed out numerous times that "conservatives" (Republicans) sided with the King of Britain and Liberals (Democrats) didn't-

Personally, I'm a libertarian with "originalist" views. So, don't go there with a personal attack.

In the end, we wound up with a fairly altruistic document- it's pretty obvious though, that altruism is not the same as altruistic and the lens it's read through determines how the prism breaks up and/or bends the light.

Back then the Republicans tried to free the slaves and today they fight against the chains of Marxism, at least, some do anyway.

 

[Picaro]

I wish I could link this to the Constitution forum- it's an interesting bit of History that high lights the constitution.
It illustrates (without a lot of imagination) how the country has been divided from the get- go. The North vs the South.
This article lays out a precursor to the unCivil War- the constitution. Not the authors thought, but my own. It's not surprising but it is enlightening.


The Founding Fathers' Coup d'État

The revolution of 1776–1781 converted thirteen provinces, practically as they stood, into thirteen autonomous political units, completely independent, and they so continued until 1789, formally held together as a sort of league, by the Articles of Confederation. For our purposes, the point to be remarked about this eight-year period,


The northern war of aggression was economic- the South was more of an agricultural place and the "moneyed" in the North(east) couldn't compete simply due to terrain and climate- so, money did what it has always done- force its way into control. This article points out the troubles with the constitution being ratified and how it came about- moneyed vs farmers-

It was the New England states, largely Federalists, who were always threatening to secede and rejoin England up until the 1830's; they resented the wealth and political power of Virginia and the rest of the South, which had the highest per capita income in the states in the pre-Civil War Days, though it was concentrated in some 2,500 families, and they particularly hated Jefferson and hsi 'DEmocratic Republicans'. He barely won election to the Vice Presidency and then the Presidency, and he won it by the support of the evangelical vote, which opposed the Federalists and their platforms, which were essentially recreating England here.

 

[TNHarley]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

 

[Mushroom]

There were no "Republicans" at that time, dumbarse.

What you had was either "Federalists", or "Whigs". And for decades they were the ones that wanted to leave the country.

God save us from the Revisionists that even 160 years later are trying to show they were right in the Civil War.

It's over, you lost, get over it already. Nobody but inbred white cracker morons gives a crap anymore. Other than the racists, but they count even less in my opinion.

 

[Unkotare]

Any source that refers to "The War of Northern Aggression" can be summarily dismissed as not anywhere near worth taking seriously.

 

[whitehall]

States rights vs the power of the federal government. Lincoln could have and should have mediated the issue before it erupted into violence but he seemed confused and distracted by personal issues at the time and influenced by bad advisers. Generations after generations of American kids were taught that Lincoln "saved the union" but in reality the union fell apart on his watch. After he was assassinated a virtual army of novelists, dedicated to preserving the Lincoln legacy, distracted Americans from viewing history as it really was.

 

[Mushroom]

States rights vs the power of the federal government. Lincoln could have and should have mediated the issue before it erupted into violence

You know, that's kinda hard since he was not even President yet when South Carolina seceded. In fact, by the time he took office on 4 March 1861, 6 states had seceded, and had not only declared themselves a new nation, they had elected their own President.

So yea, kinda hard for him to have even mediated anything if he was not even President yet. And barely a month after the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.

History is an amazing thing if you actually know it. Knowing such things as the dates things happen is really fun for making others look foolish.

 

[Picaro]

Lincoln knew exactly what would happen if he attempted to blockade the harbor, because 5 states had already seceded when Buchanan tried to do that. The war was deliberate. No one ever thought secession was illegal, and granting the Federal government the power to use military force against a state was deliberately and soundly rejected at the Constitutional Convention. Everyone also knew what the Republican platforms were, implementing the old Whig 'American System', a series of government projects that would only benefit the northern states and radically change the tax laws and how government was funded, with massive railroad subsidies, the Moril tariffs and homestead acts to go along with the railroad subsidies.

So yes, he could have mediated if he so chose to. The South's 10% tariffs and the plan to ship cotton directly to Europe and bypass the northern shipping and financial monopoly tipped the balance to go to war in Lincoln's favor, barely; New York City almost seceded as well, and Pennsylvania almost went, too. He openly rejected any negotiations or legals means to resolve his quandary, he needed other baseless pretexts for window dressing. One scheme was to use the Federal naval ports to tax southern exports. If they resisted this scheme, he would use that as a pretext.

Nobody expects some politician to come out and say the real reasons they are doing something; because Lincoln didn't say 'I plan to hand my cronies all kinds of subsidies and pass a lot of the tax burden off on southerners and working people' doesn't mean they didn't do exactly that, right off the starting line. We have the record of their intentions in the congressional record, in the bills they passed first before they ever got around to slavery; his Emancipation Proclaimation nothing but a ploy to keep England out of the war via a fake 'morality' gimmick.

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.


.... and dozens more, both pro and con papers all over the U.S.. Everybody at the time knew what the war was over: northern welfare programs paid for at the expense of the South.

So yes, real history does make the ignorant look like morons, especially those who keep trying to bullshit everybody that they would have been big anti-slavery warriors fighting to free back people n stuff and should get some sort of imaginary moral authority on modern issues, when we all know they wouldn't have been any different than anybody else back then.

And, we know what Lincoln's plans for those 'freed' slaves was, too, since he already implemented that plan under the military governors in the states the north had occupied during the war as well. It was keeping them on the plantations, without the right to leave without permission from the owners, but since they were 'free' they had to be paid a wage: $3 a month, set by the government.

 

[Mushroom]

Lincoln knew exactly what would happen if he attempted to blockade the harbor, because 5 states had already seceded when Buchanan tried to do that. The war was deliberate. No one ever thought secession was illegal, and granting the Federal government the power to use military force against a state was deliberately and soundly rejected at the Constitutional Convention. Everyone also knew what the Republican platforms were, implementing the old Whig 'American System', a series of government projects that would only benefit the northern states and radically change the tax laws and how government was funded, with massive railroad subsidies, the Moril tariffs and homestead acts to go along with the railroad subsidies.

So yes, he could have mediated if he so chose to. The South's 10% tariffs and the plan to ship cotton directly to Europe and bypass the northern shipping and financial monopoly tipped the balance to go to war in Lincoln's favor,

Well, since the Confederacy attacked first, most of what you said is meaningless.

And cotton was already dead by the time of the Civil War. Egypt and India had already replaced the US as the main cotton suppliers to the world. Even today, "Egyptian Cotton" is considered the best. US cotton was only bought because although not as good, it was cheap.

Hell, the UK barely even blinked, they really could not even care less about cotton, no matter what the idiots in the Confederacy thought. In fact, one of the most interesting aftershocks was the Lancashire Cotton Famine. Speculation so drove up the price, that cotton was rotting on the docks because the mills could not afford to buy it. A completely fake "shortage", because speculation had literally made it to expensive to buy or use. And when it finally adjusted itself, the worldwide price of cotton collapsed. This is what brought down Egypt, who's economy was entirely based on cotton.

Not unlike modern Venezuela, who's entire economy was based on oil, which often gets spikes in price due to speculation and not actual availability.

But yea, keep trying to justify the war. Sorry bubba, slavery ain't coming back, and the Confederacy still lost.

 

[Picaro]

Well, since the Confederacy attacked first, most of what you said is meaningless.

Rubbish. Attempts to Blockade ports is an act of war everywhere on the planet, so most of what you say is meaningless.

And cotton was already dead by the time of the Civil War. Egypt and India had already replaced the US as the main cotton suppliers to the world. Even today, "Egyptian Cotton" is considered the best. US cotton was only bought because although not as good, it was cheap.

So now you're saying it was indeed stupid and pointless to start a war with the South. Nobody will dispute that

Hell, the UK barely even blinked, they really could not even care less about cotton, no matter what the idiots in the Confederacy thought. In fact, one of the most interesting aftershocks was the Lancashire Cotton Famine. Speculation so drove up the price, that cotton was rotting on the docks because the mills could not afford to buy it. A completely fake "shortage", because speculation had literally made it to expensive to buy or use. And when it finally adjusted itself, the worldwide price of cotton collapsed. This is what brought down Egypt, who's economy was entirely based on cotton.

Actually southern cotton was of much better quality than Egypt's or India's, which is why the south would have had plenty of customers in Europe. there is more than one historical study out there on how poorly the Egyptian and Indian cotton compared, and the problems trying to upgrade it and expand production. It never went well.

Not unlike modern Venezuela, who's entire economy was based on oil, which often gets spikes in price due to speculation and not actual availability.

So what?

But yea, keep trying to justify the war. Sorry bubba, slavery ain't coming back, and the Confederacy still lost.

lol the only morons here trying to justify the war are the frauds like you. Nobody here is 'bringing back slavery', you're just trying to bullshit people into believing you would have done something about it if you had been around back then, which of course is just you being a liar. Sorry, but Yankees didn't fight to free slaves, and in fact if Lincoln hadn't used his private army to control elections in the border states, his Presidency would have been toast in the 1862 mid-terms, when many voters thought he was turning it into a war on slavery instead of a war to keep all black people out of the north and the new territories, which is what the Republicans were running on, a 'white nationalist' platform 'free soil for free white men only'.

The war was over money, stealing money from the South to give pork to the North, period. The Peanut Gallery can find the thread here on the 'Contraband Camps' and the government run plantations, as well as finding out about them on their own; Lincoln had no intentions of turning millions of blacks loose and letting them flee north. Better they die in camps than let them actually be free to go where they wanted; they would have been murdered by the local whites same as the Jews who tried to return to Poland after WW II.

 

[Mushroom]

Rubbish. Attempts to Blockade ports is an act of war everywhere on the planet, so most of what you say is meaningless.

Which started a week after the attack on Fort Sumter.

Yet again, you show your complete and utter lack of knowledge of history. And the rest of your nonsensical post (as are all others) are similarly ignored. Lack of any kind of actual history, simply crap you make up as you go.

Good god, you could not even get the first sentence of your post right, completely failing to comprehend that the South started the war, and the blockade was only enacted after they attacked US forces.

Tell you what, want some recommendations to some Grade School history texts? They may be basic, but at least they get the timelines right. Something you keep failing over and over again.

 

[Picaro]

Which started a week after the attack on Fort Sumter.

Rubbish. Buchanan tried that in January, with the result that five states jioned with South Carolina in secession. We have Lincoln hoping for the same results in April, and he got it with his deliberate act of war.

Yet again, you show your complete and utter lack of knowledge of history. And the rest of your nonsensical post (as are all others) are similarly ignored. Lack of any kind of actual history, simply crap you make up as you go.

Says the guy who parrots his 4th grade history class nonsense and relies on strawmen and cartoon stereotypes for 'arguments'. I cited Lincoln himself on his plans, while you got nothing but whining. The only people making crap up is you and your strawmen.

Good god, you could not even get the first sentence of your post right, completely failing to comprehend that the South started the war, and the blockade was only enacted after they attacked US forces.

Repetitive rubbish, based on school yard nonsense: " Tommy hit me first!!! Wah!!!!". sorry but blockading ports is an act of war, doesn't matter which side 'fired the first shot', or any shot for that matter.

Tell you what, want some recommendations to some Grade School history texts? They may be basic, but at least they get the timelines right. Something you keep failing over and over again

It's nearly time for your breakfast beer.. I'm not interested in your 4th grade history books, but htanks anyway; I've already cited several newspapers of the day, and I have dozens more, and also from Lincoln himself, and it seems nearly everybody at the time knows what you don't have a clue about.

Meanwhile, we also know secession wasn't illegal, and James Madison shot down an attempt to include a clause in the Constitution that granted the Federal govt. the power to use force against a state to boot, so you have no arguments to make, just your silly irrelevant claims of that being 'against slavery n stuff' 160 years after it mattered makes you 'Speshul'.

 

[Bezukhov]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

 

[TNHarley]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

LOL the old lincoln cliche.
"You dont support lincoln shitting all over the bill of rights and abusing his power more than any other president in history so you must support slavery and be a white supremacist"
Which is funny in itself, because lincoln was a white supremacist who didnt give a damn about slaves.
And to top it all off, you call yourself an anarcho capitalist

 

[Mushroom]

Rubbish. Buchanan tried that in January, with the result that five states jioned with South Carolina in secession. We have Lincoln hoping for the same results in April, and he got it with his deliberate act of war.

Sorry, gonna call bullshit here.

You see, I have read the secession letters from each of those states, and not a single one mentioned any kind of blockade. I just read through 5 references, and none of them mention a blockade either. In fact, trying a search on Google with the words Buchanan and Blockade generally brought me back to a single event.

August 1864, when Admiral Franklin Buchanan (Confederate States Navy) tried to break the blockade at Mobile Bay and got smashed.

So please, a reliable and verifiable reference to this "blockade".

In fact, it makes absolutely no sense because President Buchanan was a pro-Slavery Democrat! He largely did absolutely nothing from the moment the election was over and he was a lame duck. He even tried to pull the troops from Fort Sumter, but most of his cabinet threatened to resign if he did, so he instead sent them more forces.

Which never arrived by the way, because there were never any orders given to provide support for this. So when the SS Star of the West arrived on 9 January and was fired upon by South Carolina forces, it turned around and went back to Baltimore without dropping off any troops or supplies.

And once again, your inability to know history makes your very first line, and all of the rest of your long winded post garbage. Now kindly prove this claim about President "Wimpy" Buchanan trying to blockade the South.

And you quoted Lincoln, big whoop-dee-doo! Because every single thing I have mentioned so far (and you are trying to claim) happened before he became President! The secession, this mystery "Buchanan Blockade", the firing on the SS Star of the West, every single one of these things is before he took office. So what he said or wrote later does not matter at all.

 

[Bezukhov]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

LOL the old lincoln cliche.
"You dont support lincoln shitting all over the bill of rights and abusing his power more than any other president in history so you must support slavery and be a white supremacist"
Which is funny in itself, because lincoln was a white supremacist who didnt give a damn about slaves.
And to top it all off, you call yourself an anarcho capitalist

All I know for sure is that before Lincoln, slavery. After Lincoln, no more slavery. That simple truth must cause you great pains.

ETA: So a White supremacist who approves of African slavery is a better person than a White supremacist who disapproves of African slavery?

 

[TNHarley]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

LOL the old lincoln cliche.
"You dont support lincoln shitting all over the bill of rights and abusing his power more than any other president in history so you must support slavery and be a white supremacist"
Which is funny in itself, because lincoln was a white supremacist who didnt give a damn about slaves.
And to top it all off, you call yourself an anarcho capitalist

All I know for sure is that before Lincoln, slavery. After Lincoln, no more slavery. That simple truth must cause you great pains.

ETA: So a White supremacist who approves of African slavery is a better person than a White supremacist who disapproves of African slavery?

Thats all you know? Lol so you really dont know shit then huh?

 

[Picaro]

of course it was economic. The great american tyrant lincoln basically said as much

That Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

Lincoln killed off almost a million 'free' black people in his 'Contraband Camps', keepong htem from fleeing north, where they would annoyed the white nationalists Lincoln relied on for votes. He kept his promise to free white men to keep black people from moving north and into the new territories, keep all that land for whites. He also controlled 8 states' elections via a private army loyal only to him personally. So yeah, he was a tyrant, and a psychotic homicidal maniac. that probably explains his popularity with you and hood rats.