Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[Camp]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

 

[reconmark]

People that knowingly fucked their cousins and other relatives for the sole purpose of maintaining a social position.

what about those that **** their sisters, sell them into slavery, and still have no social standing?

Those would be the poor white southerners, the idiots that were duped into a fool's errand.
I was referring to the so called southern aristocrats...

whose great grandchildren and great great grandchildren have an achievement gap?

I'll wait for an intelligent answer that I know is not possible

An intelligent answer is rarely given to a stupid question.
Do you need me to explain the achievement gap between white aristocratic cousin fuckers and poor white that stupidity went to war to maintain their false sense of racial superiority???

The simple answer (the answer that fits you best) is that those that can afford the best private educations, have the best political connections and the means to finance business will always have an achievement gap over the poor stupid bumpkins.
Next...

who is bitching about the achievement gap and expects who to fix it?

Who's bitching about the achievement gap???...obviously you, you brought it up in this thread.

 

[reconmark]

Apparently Lee was not what a lot of his racist sheep like to think he was:

LEE S LIGHT SKINNED SLAVE GIRLS

Hearsay -- no actual evidence -- fail.

Head in the sand stupidity, willful ignorance and denial of common sense.
Your rebuttal=fail

 

[reconmark]

I still don'gt get the American patriot thing about Gen. Lee. Patriot to Virginia, understood. Don't see how he could be both patriotic to Virginia and America at the same time.

He loved the idea of a free America with a small and limited Federal Government (just like Thomas Jefferson and most of our founders). Lincoln preferred a huge, top heavy Federal Government that forced its will upon all the various States of the Union.

So he wanted a free America...just not for Black people.
Yeah, he and you are making a whole lot of sense.

 

[reconmark]

Ah, flipping the bird and calling names. A sure way to make point. LOL

I could provide you with a long list of despicable names that the worshippers of the Lincoln cult have called me in this thread. Names like, apologist for slavery, traitor, racist, etc.

You reap what you sew.

They may be despicable names however you can't state that they aren't properly attributed to you.

 

[Toro]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

 

[paperview]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

The Lost Cause school and the Daughters of the Confederacy round the turn of the Century did a good job resurrecting that as an excuse to hide the shame of the real cause.

The tariffs we were really not much of an issue at the time, and plenty of southern politicians at the time said so.

 

[squeeze berry]

what about those that **** their sisters, sell them into slavery, and still have no social standing?

Those would be the poor white southerners, the idiots that were duped into a fool's errand.
I was referring to the so called southern aristocrats...

whose great grandchildren and great great grandchildren have an achievement gap?

I'll wait for an intelligent answer that I know is not possible

An intelligent answer is rarely given to a stupid question.
Do you need me to explain the achievement gap between white aristocratic cousin fuckers and poor white that stupidity went to war to maintain their false sense of racial superiority???

The simple answer (the answer that fits you best) is that those that can afford the best private educations, have the best political connections and the means to finance business will always have an achievement gap over the poor stupid bumpkins.
Next...

who is bitching about the achievement gap and expects who to fix it?

Who's bitching about the achievement gap???...obviously you, you brought it up in this thread.

Obama and the NAACP for starters and it's obvious you have an achievement gap

 

[bendog]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

Well tariffs did play a huge role. Small southern farmers were forced to buy more expensive northern goods, and Southern plantations did not have a good trade policy from DC. But all that goes back to slavery. The south did not evolve into a manfring society because wealth (capital) was tied to slaves.

thus, it always comes back to slaves. And that's not to say Lincoln was a friend to them.

So, while I brought up the "issue" of the north never paying for the value of legal private property seized (slaves), even disregarding the issue of legality, it was total war. And with the Emancipation, Lincoln not only destroyed the south's economy but even removed the capital necessary for economic expansion.

 

[bendog]

I still don'gt get the American patriot thing about Gen. Lee. Patriot to Virginia, understood. Don't see how he could be both patriotic to Virginia and America at the same time.

He viewed secession as illegal. And, he knew slavery was unsustainable, even if was fine with it from a moral standpoint. He knew that Lincoln did not take any action to take any property (slave) from any owner, and in fact explicitly promised not to do so, up until the Emancipation and declaration of total war. But, despite knowing Virginia was on a suicidal course, he regarded his honor required him not to oppose Virginia, and even to take up arms to defend it when he disagreed with the policy and knew the South could not win.

It's the conundrum of southern culture. Blanche Dubois of a Streetcar named Desire. A culture on a suicidal course, even a course of a sociopathic leader.

 

[paperview]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

Well tariffs did play a huge role.
....

No, they didn't. They played a very minor role. Not a huge role.

Tariffs had been historically low prior to the Morrill tariff bill, and if the rebs hadn't seceded and left congress, it likely wouldn't have passed..


Let's listen to Alexander Stephens (furture VP of the Confederacy, address to the Georgia legislature in November 1860:


"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen?

The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

Alec Stephen s Speech to the Georgia Legislature

Stephens then goes on to talk about how powerless Lincoln would in getting things passed (and people appointed) because of the "large majority of the House of Representatives against him."

 

[bendog]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

Well tariffs did play a huge role.
....

No, they didn't. They played a very minor role. Not a huge role.

Tariffs had been historically low prior to the Morrill tariff bill, and if the rebs hadn't seceded and left congress, it likely wouldn't have passed..


Let's listen to Alexander Stephens (furture VP of the Confederacy, address to the Georgia legislature in November 1860:


"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen?

The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

Alec Stephen s Speech to the Georgia Legislature

Stephens then goes on to talk about how powerless Lincoln would in getting things passed (and people appointed) because of the "large majority of the House of Representatives against him."

The South wanted no tariffs, but that position was direct result of the slave economy. Further, the North wanted to limit imports from Europe.

There was an irony. When the north shut down the south's ability to export cotton, India became the world supplier of cotton. The south thought international pressure would be brought. Sort of like Opec. You find new suppliers.

 

[bripat9643]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

Oh, so you think he invaded to free the slaves?

ROFL!

He said many times that wasn't the reason.

 

[bripat9643]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

The poor South. Just victims of their own stupidity, greed, and lack of constitutional freedoms for its citizens.

It takes amazing gall to stick up for a group of states gathered around the idea of keeping nearly half of it's population in chains.

The Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. It was fought so Lincoln and the statist Republicans could impose hegemony on the Southern states and mulct them with high tariffs.

 

[bripat9643]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

The poor South. Just victims of their own stupidity, greed, and lack of constitutional freedoms for its citizens.

hmmmm . . no. they were the victims of Lincoln and his war machine. The claim that they deserved to be invaded because they have slavery couldn't be more stupid or more wrong. Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without shooting a single person, but the USA couldn't do that?

Idiotic.

 

[paperview]

It's only been said about ten thousand times now:

The North fought to save the Union.

The South fought to preserve, protect and expand slavery.

Jesus Christ. Stop being so dense.

 

[bripat9643]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

Well tariffs did play a huge role.
....

No, they didn't. They played a very minor role. Not a huge role.

Tariffs had been historically low prior to the Morrill tariff bill, and if the rebs hadn't seceded and left congress, it likely wouldn't have passed..


Let's listen to Alexander Stephens (furture VP of the Confederacy, address to the Georgia legislature in November 1860:


"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen?

The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

Alec Stephen s Speech to the Georgia Legislature

Stephens then goes on to talk about how powerless Lincoln would in getting things passed (and people appointed) because of the "large majority of the House of Representatives against him."

The South wanted no tariffs, but that position was direct result of the slave economy. Further, the North wanted to limit imports from Europe.

There was an irony. When the north shut down the south's ability to export cotton, India became the world supplier of cotton. The south thought international pressure would be brought. Sort of like Opec. You find new suppliers.

Your point?

 

[paperview]

hmmmm . . no. they were the victims of Lincoln and his war machine. ....

I'll post this as many times as needed to get through:

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.
Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

==============


Further, another Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

Their is your "War Machine."

 

[bripat9643]

"That isn't the reason Lincoln instigated the Ft Sumter event and then invaded VIrginia. He wanted to the idea of secession..."

You're insane, little boy flipping the bird.

I'm convinced it isn't so much insanity as much as plain unadulterated stupidity.

I think it's confirmation bias.

In fairness, my professor in economic history said tariffs played a big part in the Civil War, and he wasn't a nutter, though I think he did have institutional biases.

Well tariffs did play a huge role.
....

No, they didn't. They played a very minor role. Not a huge role.

Tariffs had been historically low prior to the Morrill tariff bill, and if the rebs hadn't seceded and left congress, it likely wouldn't have passed..


Let's listen to Alexander Stephens (furture VP of the Confederacy, address to the Georgia legislature in November 1860:


"The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment.

About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen?

The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself.

And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that...Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

Alec Stephen s Speech to the Georgia Legislature

Stephens then goes on to talk about how powerless Lincoln would in getting things passed (and people appointed) because of the "large majority of the House of Representatives against him."

Wrong. Tariffs played a major role:

More Lies About the Civil War 8211 LewRockwell.com

The only thing worse than a historian who calls himself a "Lincoln scholar" is a sociologist who does the same. This truth was on display recently in a January 9 Washington Post article entitled "Five Myths about Why the South Seceded" by one James W. Loewen.

In discussing the role of federal tariff policy in precipitating the War to Prevent Southern Independence Loewen is either grossly ignorant, or he is dishonest. He begins by referring to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification, whereby the state rightly condemned the 48 percent average tariff rate as a blatant act of plunder (mostly at the South's expense) and refused to collect it at Charleston Harbor. Loewen writes that "when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede to protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force." That much is true. "No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down," Loewen then writes. This is all false. It is not true that "no state joined the movement." As historian Chauncy Boucher wrote in The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama joined South Carolina in publicly denouncing the Tariff of Abominations, while the Yankee bastions of Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, and New York responded with their own resolutions in support of political plunder through extortionate tariff rates.

Nor is it true to say that "South Carolina backed down." South Carolina and the Jackson administration reached a compromise in 1833: Jackson "backed down" by not following through with his threats to use force to collect the tariff, and South Carolina agreed to collect tariffs at a much lower rate. Jackson "backed down" as much (or more) as South Carolina did, but the Official Court Historian's History of the War, as expressed by Loewen, holds that only South Carolina retreated. The reason for this distortion of history is to spread the lie that tax protesters such as the South Carolina nullifiers, or the Whiskey Rebels of an earlier generation, have never successfully challenged the federal government's taxing "authority." But of course they have succeeded; The Whiskey Rebels ended up not paying the federal whisky tax, and the Tariff of Abominations was sharply reduced over a ten-year period.

Loewen next spreads an egregious falsehood about the tariff: "Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them," he writes. "Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816." Every bit of this narrative is false.

Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln's official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, "Protection for Home Industry." (That is, high tariff rates to "protect home industry" from international competition). In a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("Steeltown, U.S.A."), a hotbed of protectionist sentiment, Lincoln announced that no other issue was as important as raising the tariff rate. It is well known that Lincoln made skillful use of his lifelong protectionist credentials to win the support of the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican convention of 1860, and he did sign ten tariff-increasing bills while in office. When he announced a naval blockade of the Southern ports during the first months of the war, he gave only one reason for the blockade: tariff collection.

As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," and then threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to "back down" to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done.

The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party's economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax. At the time, the tariff accounted for at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenues. The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!

This threat to use "force" and "invasion" against sovereign states, by the way, was a threat to commit treason. Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (emphasis added). Lincoln followed through with his threat; his invasion of the Southern states was the very definition of treason under the Constitution.

The words "Morrill Tariff" do not appear anywhere in Loewen's Washington Post article despite the fact that he portrays himself as some kind of "Keeper of The Truth" regarding "Civil War" history. (And where were the Washington Post's "fact checkers?!) It was the Morrill Tariff that Lincoln referred to in his first inaugural address, not the much lower 1857 tariff, as Loewen falsely claims.

Abraham Lincoln was not the only American president who believed that the tariff was an important political issue in 1860. Contrary to Loewen's false claims, Jefferson Davis, like Lincoln, highlighted the tariff issue in his February 18, 1861 inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama (From The Papers of Jefferson Davis, vol. 7, pp. 45–51). After announcing that the Confederate government was "anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations" Davis said the following:

An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency . . .

Thus, Loewen's statement that the Southern states said "nothing" about tariff policy is unequivocally false. Jefferson Davis proclaimed here that the economy of the Confederacy would be based on free trade. Indeed, the Confederate Constitution of 1861 outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, and only allowed for a modest "revenue tariff."

When Davis spoke of a "passion or the lust for dominion," he was referring to the constant attempts, for some seventy years, of the Northern Whig and Republican parties to plunder the South with the instrument of protectionist tariffs, as was attempted with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. In other words, he declared here that, in his opinion, Lincoln was deadly serious (pun intended) about enforcing the newly-doubled rate of federal tariff taxation with a military invasion of the Southern states, and was preparing for war as a result. Contrary to Loewen's ignorant diatribe, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis announced to the world in 1861 that tariff policy was indeed a paramount political issue: In their respective inaugural addresses, Lincoln threatened "invasion" of any state(s) that failed to collect his tariff, while Davis promised to defend against any such invasion.

Before the war, Northern newspapers associated with the Republican Party were editorializing in favor of naval bombardments of the Southern ports because they knew that the South was adopting free trade, while the North was moving in the direction of a 50% average tariff rate (which did in fact exist, more or less, from 1863 to 1913, when the federal income tax was adopted). These Republican party propagandists correctly understood that much of the trade of the world would enter the U.S. through Southern ports under such a scenario. Rather than adopting reasonable tariff rates themselves, they agitated for war on the South.

The tariff controversy was not the only cause of the war, and I have never argued that it was (despite lies to the contrary told about me by such people as historian Jeffrey Hummel). But it was obviously an important cause of the decades-long conflict between North and South.​

 

[bripat9643]

hmmmm . . no. they were the victims of Lincoln and his war machine. ....

I'll post this as many times as needed to get through:

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.
Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

==============


Further, another Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

Their is your "War Machine."

You've already had it explained to you multiple times that resupplying a fort in the territory of another sovereign nation is an act of war.