If the Confederacy was all about states rights..

Then where in the constitution does it talk about collecting money?
How to confirm one hasn't read the US Constitution without admitting one hasn't read the US Constitution...

Article I​

Section 2: The House of Representatives

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, [...]

Section 8: Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; [...]
 
There was no way the South could have expanded slavery on the eve of the industrial revolution. Lincoln should have done everything he could to preserve the Union before the Civil War. Instead he relied on bad advice and possibly some mental breakdown that told him the Civil War would barely last a couple of months. New Jersey was the last state to outlaw slavery scarcely a decade before the Civil War so it seems that slavery existed in the North before and after the Civil War. The victors write the history books and a hundred and fifty years of Lincoln propaganda taught kids that Lincoln "preserved" the Union while the Union fell apart under his watch. Historically the victors preferred not to dwell on northern slavery or violent racism while northern industrial complex became rich on the backs of slaves. .
The above is why people giggle behind your back.
 
Hypocrite industrialized northeast states converted whaling ships into slave ships and factories became wealthy from importing and processing cotton from southern plantations. The Confederacy could never compete with the industrial might of the North. The "draft riots" in New York City proved how racist the North was when blacks were rounded up and hanged from light poles.
Whaling ships were never converted to slave ships. Whaling ships were slow ships with small crews designed for long endurance. Slave ships were designed to be fast with large crews in order to move a very perishable cargo from source to end user. Look at a model of the Charles W. Morgan for an example of a whaler, she was slab-sided, bluff bowed and under-masted to carry the maximum amount of whale oil with a minimum crew.
By modern standards, the most ardent abolitionist was an unrepentant racist. Being anti slavery didn’t mean they were pro-black. White working men in both the North and South resented blacks because they undercut the wages paid to white workers.

What ships were converted to slave ships and vice versa were privateers. Both were designed to be fast, handy and able to carry a large number of people. In privateers, those people were prize crews to sail captured ships into a friendly port to be sold, in slave ships those people were cargo shoehorned into the minimum amount of space. Speed to run away from warships was a necessity for both privateers and slavers.
 
Last edited:
Except at least into the new territories, as they wished to have the right. Too, there was no constitutional provision of which I'm aware that constrained the South to not expand the use of unpaid labour in the South.

And as been pointed out, even by Daniel Webster and other abolitionists, it never would happen. Slaves cost money, they weren't 'unpaid' like you assume, they needed support and and upkeep, and the tariffs were aimed directly at their needed imports. You're grasp of economics is non-existent. Geography and climate determined where slavery was profitable and where it wasn't, not laws and silly little Burb Brats 150 years later patting themselves on the back for being 'anti-slavery n stuff', when it is safe and pretty much pointless.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: cnm
How to confirm one hasn't read the US Constitution without admitting one hasn't read the US Constitution...

Article I​

Section 2: The House of Representatives

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, [...]

Section 8: Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; [...]
So the Articles of Confederation never mentioned anything about taxes..?
 
This will help, BrickHouse.

Did the Articles of Confederation mention taxes?

Yes, the Articles of Confederation did mention taxes, but they did not grant the national government the power to levy taxes directly. Instead, the Articles required that any expenses for the common defense or general welfare be paid out of a common treasury, which was to be supplied by the states. Each state was responsible for contributing to this treasury based on the value of its land and improvements2.
This system proved to be ineffective, as the national government had no authority to enforce tax collection, leading to financial difficulties and contributing to the eventual replacement of the Articles with the U.S. Constitution4.
 
Except at least into the new territories, as they wished to have the right. Too, there was no constitutional provision of which I'm aware that constrained the South to not expand the use of unpaid labour in the South.
Lincoln should have let it happen if it would have avoided the carnage of the Civil War. It's doubtful if it could have been successfully implemented and time was running out before the industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: cnm
Lincoln should have let it happen if it would have avoided the carnage of the Civil War. It's doubtful if it could have been successfully implemented and time was running out before the industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.
Nope.
 
Then ignore your personal ignorance and hatered, whitehall, and defend your position.
 
Lincoln should have let it happen if it would have avoided the carnage of the Civil War. It's doubtful if it could have been successfully implemented and time was running out before the industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.

He should have let it happen because it was perfectly legal. He needed a war because all those corporate welfare projects northern bankers and railroads and protectionist industrial barons demanded cost money, and they weren't about to tax themselves to pay for them.


"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.


"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


"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, andthese 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


"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

"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 madmen 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.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: cnm
He should have let it happen because it was perfectly legal. He needed a war because all those corporate welfare projects northern bankers and railroads and protectionist industrial barons demanded cost money, and they weren't about to tax themselves to pay for them.


"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.


"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


"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, andthese 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


"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

"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 madmen 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.
What a load of irrelevant irrelevance.
 
Lincoln should have let it happen if it would have avoided the carnage of the Civil War. It's doubtful if it could have been successfully implemented and time was running out before the industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.
I'd imagine it would have just led to the carnage of a different war. It was about money, after all, and all the capital invested in the livestock.
 
By modern standards, the most ardent abolitionist was an unrepentant racist. Being anti slavery didn’t mean they were pro-black. White working men in both the North and South resented blacks because they undercut the wages paid to white workers.

Yep.

What ships were converted to slave ships and vice versa were privateers. Both were designed to be fast, handy and able to carry a large number of people. In privateers, those people were prize crews to sail captured ships into a friendly port to be sold, in slave ships those people were cargo shoehorned into the minimum amount of space. Speed to run away from warships was a necessity for both privateers and slavers.

Both Parties played on the ignorance of immigrants re the realities of American geography in the elections. The South won all the Supreme Court battles over slavery, and yet from 1850 on it never spread beyond its already established geographical boundaries, even where it was legal.
Oh. What was their income?

They got shelter, year round food, clothes, and owners spent around $60 a year on shoes and other needs, and medical care. Compare that to the $3 a month Lincoln's martial law governors forced them to work for on the confiscate plantations, and not allowed to leave without written permissions from the new plantation owners,. Those left to starve and die in the Union's Contraband camps of course got nothing. Couldn't let those 'free people' flee north and upset the wonderful Yankee Freedum fighters.
 
What a load of irrelevant irrelevance.


Yes, you find being proven an idiot disturbing. Real facts have to be avoided and the fantasy narrative adhered to. Like I said, pretending to be 'anti-slavery' is just a modern thing carried out for personal aggrandizement. You've never in your life lifted a finger to free anybody, and you wouldn't have back then, either; you're just another fraud trying to bullshit us.
 
They got shelter, year round food, clothes, and owners spent around $60 a year on shoes and other needs, and medical care.
So, no income, they were unpaid labour.

You could have just said so.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom