Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

Economic factors leading to the war.

http://staff.jccc.edu/jjackson/Economic Issues.htm

 

lol.

Aper thinks this dude




Who wrote about the "War of Northern Aggression" eclipses actual economic facts/

Too funny.

 

You can find that kind of garbage on hardcoreconfederates .com too.

No joke.

 

Your credibility on anything to do with this topic is zero. You got caught with your pants down blatantly misrepresenting your own links in another thread on this very topic. Try posting your garbage on another board where they don't know this yet, you'll have better luck.

 

In other words, you will just rely on trolling and 'posting last' instead of knowing what you're talking about. We already gathered that, and your non-responses that follow make that even more clear.

Obviously it you who has no stones, otherwise you would just rinse and repeat gibberish already proven false in other posts.

Ah, so you admit you prefer relying on comic books. No surprise there.

 

That's a lie.

Show what the hell you are talking about or STHU.

 

For anyone interested in the pile of bilge the poster (and Lost Causer Walter Williams) has been trying to pass as fact, I present (from a couple of years ago...I get tired of having to debunk this nonsense) :

"I want to focus on that line about Southern ports paying 75% of import tariffs, because it’s the core of his entire argument. He’s playing an classic trick, throwing out some impressive factoid, and then asking a rhetorical question based on it, that seemingly has an obvious answer. The problem is that, in this case, his devastating “fact” — “Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859” — isn’t even close to being true.



The first red flag here is that annual tariff data was not collected and reported by the Treasury Department based on calendar years, but by fiscal years that ran from July 1 to June 30. So when Williams says “in 1859,” it’s unclear whether he’s talking about the reporting year that ended in 1859 (FY 1859), or the reporting year that began in 1859 (FY 1860). That’s a revealing slip-up, but it’s also one that doesn’t matter, because the claim is demonstrably untrue for both fiscal years, and so for the calendar year of 1859, as well.


Data for imports and tariffs collected for the year just prior to secession (July 1, 1859 to June 30, 1860, inclusive) is provided in the Annual Report of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, for the Year 1860-61 (New York: John Amerman, 1861), 57-66. I’ve uploaded a PDF copy of the relevant pages here. The first two pages include imports that were not tariffed; in case anyone was wondering, manures and guano were duty-free.
In summary, during that year the Port of New York took in $233.7M, of which $203.4M were subject to tariffs ranging from 4 to 30%. During that same period, all other U.S. ports combined received $128.5M in imports, of which $76.5M was subject to tariff. So the Port of New York, by itself, handled almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the value of all U.S. imports, and almost three-quarters (72.7%) of the value of all tariffed imports:



What about earlier years? The previous year’s report from the New York State Chamber of Commerce carries a table (p. 2) that breaks out imports clearing customs in all of New York State for the previous four fiscal years:



A glance at these numbers makes clear that in spite of some year-to-year variation in import volumes — there was an economic crash in 1857 — the share of imports coming into New York remained remarkably stable, at around two-thirds of all imports coming into the United States. (And this isn’t even including other major ports like Boston and Philadelphia.)


What about customs revenues, specifically? The Chamber of Commerce from 1860 reports — on the very first page — customs revenue for Port of New York for 1859 at $38,834,212, or about 63.5% of the $61.1M in federal revenue that year. The Port of New York, alone, accounted for nearly two-thirds of U.S. Government revenue in 1859. Williams’ assertion that “Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859” isn’t a case of “lying with statistics,” because the statistics don’t actually say anything remotely like that. It’s a case of lying, period.


So where does this made-up-from-whole-cloth assertion come from? Williams’ column has been splattered all over the Internet in the last few days, no doubt because it seemingly affirms modern cultural/political fears about big gubmint avarice. But the idea that Lincoln refused to accede to the Southern states’ secession because they represented the large majority of federal government’s revenue has been percolating around for a while. Thomas DiLorenzo — who Williams cites in the first graf of the piece — made a related and equally implausible claim in his 2002 book, (The Real Lincoln, pp. 125-26) that “in 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs. . . .”

People who’d looked at the actual numbers, including friend-of-this-blog Jim Epperson, called him out on that claim, which DiLorenzo eventually (and quietly) revised in his most recent edition to a somewhat more vague “were paying the Lion’s share of all tariffs.” DiLorenzo, not surprisingly, provides no citation to back this claim. But it’s and old turd of a notion that’s been around a long time, that Walter Williams has pulled out, polished off, and given new life on the interwebs.


(DiLorenzo’s wording is a little different, saying that the “Southern states” were paying tariffs. It’s a strange construction, given that the states weren’t paying tariffs at all, and the tariffs were paid by the merchants doing the importing — who were generally Northerners. Even if DiLorenzo were to argue that it was the end-of-the-line consumer who “paid” the tarfiff through higher costs for goods, it’s a claim that defies credulity, as it would require the eleven states that ultimately seceded, with less than a third of the nation’s population, to be consuming more than four-fifths of all the tariffed good brought into the entire county. It’s a ludicrous notion, which is probably why DiLorenzo doesn’t even pretend to offer a source for it.)


Williams and DiLorenzo have both made a good living writing books and essays and giving speeches that are full of half-truths, selective quotes, and (as in this case) outright fabrications, all directed to a narrow but extremely-loyal audience of people who are primed to believe anything bad about the federal government (then or now). Both men hold endowed academic appointments, which means they cost their respective institutions relatively little, and in return are free of heavy teaching loads and the imperative of generating peer-reviewed publications that stalk most faculty members through much of their careers.

Fair enough, but Williams’ assertion that “Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs” is surely in a league by itself. On its face it strains credulity; one needs only a basic understanding of American history to know how overwhelmingly the Northern Atlantic states and New England dominated this country’s maritime trade through the end of the 19th century. True Southrons™ often cite the heavy involvement of Northern shipping interests in the transatlantic slave trade, but that’s a selective and self-serving focus; that same region overwhelmingly dominated every other aspect of American maritime enterprise, from shipbuilding to whaling to the China trade to the nascent practice of marine engineering.

Williams surely knows this, and knows his assertion about the share of import tariffs paid through Southern ports is preposterous. If he doesn’t know it, he’s unworthy of his credentials, and if he does and asserts it anyway because that’s what his audience wants to hear, then he’s a charlatan on the order of someone like David Barton. I really can’t imagine what’s worse — the idea that he doesn’t actually know he’s wrong, or the idea that he doesn’t give a damn."

LINK

 

Indeed. But if you don't buy the Lincoln Myth then you have to be 'supporting slavery n stuff' is the usual half-baked argument they fall back on, since they really have nothing else; it's all about bashing the South now, in the present, for not buying into their identity politics astroturf campaigns. The Democratic Party is now totally committed to race baiting and Tammany style race based political machines for their voting base, having no other real platforms to run on. Demonizing the South is just another tactic, never mind the North is no better and in many cases has the worst record; after all, most riots are taking place in such wonderful bastions of sophistication and diversity as LA and New York, and Oakland, not in the South, and that's been the case for decades now. They like to deflect from that fact.

 

Anybody can find it; all they have to do is find your gibberish about the Mississippi Convention and how you made your BS claims about what it said. Easy stuff.

Go stuff yourself you're not intimidating at all.

 

^^ Everyone watching?

Made a claim about my integrity he can't back up.

 

For reference, for how far removed this poster is:

Note:

Originally Posted by Strasser

.... The South didn't start the war, Lincoln did

lol.

Need I say more?

 

I know exactly what I'm talking about; and you bloody well know it, which of course is why you're reduced to such mindless and impotent flailing in lieu of any specific and substantive criticism of anything I've said.

Nothing I've said here has been proven false in any other posts - not in this thread, not on this board, and not on this internet.

But if you think you've got the artillery to be the first to put the lie to any of it, I stand ready for the challenge.

No, I admit that comic books are more edifying than any of your contributions to this thread.

 

Not unusual for right wingers to lose the debates on this forum.
The apologists for the Confederacy of Traitors sure have taken quite a beating on this thread.

 

Paperview, if tomorrow an American M-1 Abrams tanks were to cross the DMZ in South Korea and enter North Korea and the North Koreans were to fire the first shots blowing up the American tanks, who started the war ?

Or what if it were North Korean tanks crossing the DMZ and American and ROK Army units fired the first shots and destroying the North Korean tanks with their TOW anti tank missiles, who started the war ?

You are aware that nobody was killed at Fort Sumter on either side when the first shots were fired in what is known as the Battle of Fort Sumter.

The first battle of the Civil War and nobody was killed. After over a three month battle, the Union Army surrendered and were allowed to board boats to take them off shore to Union Navy ships that were blockading Charleston Harbor.

Battle of Fort Sumter
Body count:

Union KIA = 0

Confederate KIA = 0

 

Little problem, you are only showing import tariffs. Where are the export tariffs of all of the cotton being exported to Europe. That was one of the big complaints by the South and by the cotton merchants in London England.

One of the main reason Lincoln established a naval blockade of the South was to capture European merchant ships who ran the blockade to load their cargo holds in Southern ports with cotton and not paying the high federal (Union) export tariff.

When Union naval ships would intercept and capture the European ships (mostly British but also French and even one Mexican merchant ship) Europe protested that they were neutral nations and it was an international crime to prevent a neutral country to conduct trade with a country that was at war with another country.

This is when it came to when Lincoln had to decide was it a war or a rebellion ? If it was a war between the USA and the CSA, then Lincoln was an international war criminal who established an unlawful naval blockade preventing neutral nations to conduct foreign trade.

So Lincoln turned to Vattel's, was it a war or a rebellion ?

Don't forget all of the Southern cotton that went to the Northern textiles plants then the finished products were exported and again an export tariff was paid by the purchaser.

 

It was an insurrection against the lawful government of the United States and those that participated were traitors as reflected by the Presidental pardons issued by Lincoln and Johnson. They were traitors by raising arms against the US government.

The protections of the person enumerated in the US Constitution apply to every action of the US government effectively covering everyone being subjected to the authority of the United States government.

And yes, the "Civil War" was exclusively about slavery and not about "States Rights" as protected by the 10th Amendment. The Rights of the Southern States had not been violated and had they been violated the States had recourse to the Supreme Court to address any such violation.

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

1. No, tariffs were not one of the big complaints. Read the damn Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

2. There were no export tariffs.

 

More garbage.

The South commenced hostilities before the Lincoln ever stepped into office.

Fired on Union Ships, seized forts and arsenals and took over Federal buildings all over the South. Acts of War.

Before Lincoln ever set foot in the White House.

 

To further show the poverty of your argument:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 5

I suggest you familiarize yourself with this thing called the U.S. Constitution.
​

 

And not to bludgeon an already bloodied Apacher...but...:0

The thing you say "was one of the big complaints by the South..." - the export tariffs

which the US Constitution strictly prohibits...The Confederate Constitution?

Did not prohibit export tariffs.

 

Interestingly, this is a challenge I have repeatedly made to right wingers on this forum. All too often they resort to emotional responses based on the propaganda they hear from the Fox network and rarely resort to the Constitution or to the teachings of our Founders.

Sad that they are so ignorant and emotional.

 

It has been my experience those who toot "the Constitution!!" so often, or call themselves Constitutionalists in that CEC bubble crowd,

are often the ones least familiar with the actual language of that document.

 

you are 100% correct


I find this is especially true when they claim to adhere to our Founding Father's "principles" and what they purport to be the basis for the creation of this country.

But when I quote to them Madison's Remonstrance, the Federalist Papers, Paine's Agrarian,or Hamilton's Manufacturers and the roles these played in the FDR progressive principles they don't even begin to know what I'm talking about.

 

A historical review reflects that all of the "claims" by those that even today support the Confederacy are false. It wasn't about taxes or states rights but instead the Insurrection of the Confederate States where those involved committed treason against the Constitutional authority of the United States government was based solely upon one thing and one thing alone.

WHITE (WASP) MALE SUPRMACY (RACISM / SLAVERY OF BLACKS)

There was no other reason and everyone today that argues on behalf of the Confederacy and/or that flies or displays Confedrate Flag is a WHITE SUPREMACIST RACIST. They may not know it or acknowledge it but the historical facts simply don't change.

At one time I supported Ron Paul but then he made a speech to a fraternal organization related to the Confederacy and that speech alone indicated to me that Ron Paul, whether he knew it or not, was a "closet racist" that supported White Supremacy. A person cannot support the Confederacy in any manner without linking themselves to White Supremacy and they're a racist by default whether they know it or not.

White Supremacy is the elephant in the living room.

 

Indeed,