SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> This otta go over
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1542174988

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 11/13/18 at 21:56:28

Title: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/13/18 at 21:56:28

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/11/paul-craig-roberts/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated/

Lincoln understood that he had no authority under the Constitution to abolish slavery. In his inaugural address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery. The same day that the Republican Congress passed the tariff, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment that added more constitutional protection to slavery.

Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.” The tariff was important to the North, because it financed Northern industrialization at the economic expense of the South.

During the decades prior to Southern Secession, the conflict between North and South was over the tariff, not over slavery. Slavery played a role only in the South’s effort to keep a balance in the voting power of “free states” and “slave states” in the attempt to prevent the passage of a tariff.

The Neoconservative Th...
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Best Price: $11.44
Buy New $12.84
(as of 11:20 EST - Details)

The South’s effort to exit the union legally and constitutionally was to no avail. Secession was declared a rebellion, and the South was invaded.

The misportrayal of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln’s war to free slaves is also impossible to reconcile with Lincoln’s view of blacks. Here is “the Great Emancipator” in his own words:

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

How was Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?

Just as Civil War history is mistaught in order to support the Identity Politics agenda of fomenting hatred of whites, the histories of the two world wars were fabricated in order to blame Germany, more about which later.

There is more.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/14/18 at 10:12:18

"there is more"

what? out of context quotes????

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/14/18 at 15:35:18

Those quotes stand fully explained inside themselves.
They are not out of context.
They are in disagreement with what we were taught in school.
Time to think about things.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by Eegore on 11/14/18 at 15:47:27

I was taught this in school. We actually had to use Lincoln's actual writings in at least two cited sources and one economic factor or it was an instant failing grade.

I remember as far back as 5th grade being told slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War, but that's only one school system out of several nationwide.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/14/18 at 17:15:19

Where did you go to school, E?

For the confused

out of context
[out of context]
DEFINITION
without the surrounding words or circumstances and so not fully understandable.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by Eegore on 11/14/18 at 19:30:20

I went to school in Colorado.

I asked my cousin who is in high school now what the Civil War was about and he said it was multiple reasons. He was aware that Lincoln intended to extradite blacks and he goes to school in Boston.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/14/18 at 19:34:46

In Texas, THE answer to
What caused the civil war
It was
Slavery.
Lincoln was only interested in freeing slaves.

The TRUTH was completely buried.
I discovered it.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by Eegore on 11/14/18 at 19:41:13

That's interesting, I would be interested in having some textbooks from TX looked through to see how they presented the material.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/14/18 at 20:59:52

That's probably not going to be easy.
Those books are really old and not readily available. It was one of the few answers on the tests I could get right.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/15/18 at 14:10:19

slavery wasn't the only reason for the Civil War, but it was the KEY reason, just look at the papers of secession from ALL THE STATES that seceeded, they all mention slavery, ALL of them.

now I was taught that Lincoln didn't really care one way other, that famous quote or paraphrase that Lincoln would have held the union together with or without freeing slaves is true enough.

but the original post, left a lot of ... and clearly taken out of context quotes, that NO, don't stand alone. because NOTHING really stands alone.

but yeah, I might be struggling with the idea that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, or at least as abolitionist as I'd like and that he just used that as a platform to sell the war and the idea that he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa is new to me and I wonder how serious he was about that, since it didn't happen.... politicians do say some crazy things sometimes and I'd like more context about that...

but still, Thank you JOG, for showing me something new, but given the source, I'll remain skeptical

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/15/18 at 14:32:36

because NOTHING really stands alone.

Bullshit
The quotes are complete thoughts expressed clearly.
The tariffs the north dumped on the south were THE driving force.
That's something the south couldn't use in their declaration.
But, everything I'm saying
IS IN THE ARTICLE
Which either you haven't read or you're unable to understand.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/15/18 at 14:58:24

6E7177706D6A5B6B5B63717D36040 wrote:

"The tariffs the north dumped on the south were THE driving force."

um, NO

Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth
https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/

"In debunking the tariff myth, two key points quickly illustrate how the tariff issue was far from a cause of the Civil War:

1. The tariff issue, on those rare occasions in which it was even mentioned at all, was utterly overwhelmed by the issue of slavery within the South’s own secession conventions.
2. Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage.
Screen Shot 2015-02-22 at 11.35.30

In other words, far from causing the Civil War or secession, the Morrill Tariff of March 1861 became law as a result of southern secession."

so that's the other side of your tariff BS... so while it was a factor in the divisive culture and narrative, reality is a different story.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/15/18 at 15:16:08

Juan Motyme,

SINCE the government HAD the Authority to enact a TARIFF, the south COULDN'T use that to justify their secession.

So, you're saying that the New Guys who replaced the people who retired voted For a tariff?
The law that supported slavery was strengthened when the tariff went through.

You don't suppose someone is trying to keep you believing it's about slavery, do you?

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/16/18 at 11:25:40

did you not read, or can't you understand the link that I posted???

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/18 at 13:06:45

Do you not understand that the south, by law, could NOT use the tariff as reason for secession BECAUSE, By Law, they had no argument AGAINST a tariff, BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.
That doesn't make it right, fair, not abusive, it's just NOT a legal argument.

Now, for the real point.
Lincoln didn't CARE ABOUT the slaves.

READ what He said about them and how he had no interest in raising them up to be equal with whites. You don't know WHY marriage licenses were required.
Look at when they were introduced.
Since Lincoln EXPRESSLY DECLARED he had no interest in the slavery issue, why not just allow them to secede? They had every right to.

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/16/18 at 13:07:35

listen, I'm willing to give you that there were many causes of the Civil War and that on it's face slavery was rallying cry for the abolishionist north and that Lincoln hid behind that, but a lot of the other reasons, the economic differences, for example, kind of all stem from slavery, without slaves the economy of the South would've looked completely different, so the tariff threatening to be imposed was a reaction to that economy, based on slaves.

I don't know why you are so hell bent on eliminating slavery as a main cause of the Civil War. you're not pro-slavery, I know you aren't

slavery, literally divided the nation, there was the Missouri Compromise

hell, here: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAlWqi-VQsc[/media]

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by verslagen1 on 11/16/18 at 13:17:23

382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/16/18 at 15:24:03

465542435C5157555E01300 wrote:

[quote author=382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 link=1542174988/0#12 date=1542323768]Juan Motyme,

SINCE the government HAD the Authority to enact a TARIFF, the south COULDN'T use that to justify their secession.

So, you're saying that the New Guys who replaced the people who retired voted For a tariff?
The law that supported slavery was strengthened when the tariff went through.

You don't suppose someone is trying to keep you believing it's about slavery, do you?

20 union states vs 7 southern states or 27 total
so if the congressmen from 7 states quit, there is no replacement (which would be the responsibility of the governor to reassign)
If it was 50/50 republican/democrat, that would be 27/27 (senators) after secession, 27/13 assuming all so. states were d.

And lost... we know how long it takes to get a contested bill thru... so it's not inconceivable that the tariff caused the south to secede due to it. And I think the Brits would accept any reason to cause the upstarts some grief. It will take a closer look at documents written at the time to discern the cause of the war.[/quote]

here's the Wiki on it: I just edited an important part of the break down

House actions

Justin Smith Morrill
When the 36th Congress met in 1859, action remained blocked by a wrangle over the Speaker of the House until 1860, when Republican William Pennington of New Jersey was elected. A pro-tariff Republican majority was appointed to Ways and Means, and John Sherman of Ohio became chairman.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860).

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.[4]

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were "anti-Lecompton Democrats" (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 "Opposition" Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland "Unionist", and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an "American" from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it.

Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern "Oppositionists" and "Americans". (The remaining Representatives were mostly "paired" with opposing Representatives who could not be present.[5]

Senate action
The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.[6]

1860 election
The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[7]

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[8] Abraham Lincoln's record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

Renewed Senate action
The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.

Meanwhile, the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, "the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off 'ruin,' and address the accumulating debt."[9]

The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.[10]

There were some minor amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2.

Though a Democrat himself, outgoing President James Buchanan favored the bill because of the interests of his home state, Pennsylvania. He signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office.

Adoption and amendments
The Morrill Tariff took effect one month after it was signed into law. Besides setting tariff rates, the bill altered and restricted the Warehousing Act of 1846.

The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered "Civil War" legislation.[11]

In fact, the Tariff proved to be too low for the revenue needs of the Civil War, and was quickly supplanted by the Second Morrill Tariff, or Revenue Act of 1861, later that fall.[12]

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by LostArtist on 11/16/18 at 15:24:49

regardless of all that, the ill will towards the south had started BECAUSE THEY HAD SLAVES

as I said before, Slavery literally divided the United States into a North "FREE" and South Slavery,

"The Missouri Compromise was an effort by Congress to defuse the sectional and political rivalries triggered by the request of Missouri late in 1819 for admission as a state in which slavery would be permitted. At the time, the United States contained twenty-two states, evenly divided between slave and free."

The issue of slavery was a MAIN driver of the discord between the states for DECADES before the Morrill Tariff

so, okay, the Morril Tarriff might have been the "spark" that set off the war, but it was far from the main dividing issue

Title: Re: This otta go over
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/18 at 16:53:42

But Lincoln didn't care.