The Civil War

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

cpeeks, I strongly suggest you pick a better source for your data than Thomas J. DiLorenzo or LewRockwell.com.


Here is one of many rebuttals made of Thomas J. DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln, but it is the one that goes directly to your claim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relevant page of the source cited in the rebuttal is readable on Google Books so you can check it for yourself.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That was not the source of my quote.

Then what was?  It's a simple question, and given that other sources, which I have provided, directly contradict your assertion, there's no reason to believe your assertion unless you can back it up with a source.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

I would hope you would be aware that the tariffs were being collected only on imported goods, not exported ones.  Indeed, the original Constitution itself forbids export duties from being imposed.  So the tariff could do nothing to affect the price the South could sell its goods for abroad.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.madisonjournaltoday.com/archives/966-OPINION-Journalists-write-first-draft-of-history,-but-seldom-get-it-right.html

Since we won't accept your unsourced statements, we should accept this guy's unsourced opinion instead.  I don't think so.  A lack of source is still a lack of source.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sir I have checked your source also, and I was  not overly impressed with his "opinion" either.

So what did you find lacking in the figures of the amounts and locations of customs revenues the U.S. government itself recorded during 1858-1859?  Those figures aren't opinion, they're sourced data.  You have yet to produce any source for your claim based on actual data, just more hearsay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since this thread was generating enough discussion on one aspect of the Civil War, I used my moderator magic to split it off into a separate thread: The Value of Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

PGT Beuraguard did not fire on Fort Sumpter to keep slaves, and Lincoln did not call for 75,000 troops to free slaves, he did it to put down the rebellion. Why dont you try again.

He didn't fire on Fort Sumpter at all, he fired on Fort Sumter, despite how the New York Times consistently misspelled the name during the crisis.  Calling it Fort Sumpter always strikes me as an attempt at faux authenticity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That would be up to the seceded state? Would Germany have the right to evict us from our bases?

Does Cuba have the right to evict us from Guantanamo?  No, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease, and as long we maintain our end of it, the U.S. cannot be evicted.

The whole reason we had a crisis at Fort Sumter is that Governor Pickens was a greedy idiot.

Major Anderson and his troops were originally in Fort Moultrie.  Governor Pickens rather than occupy Fort Sumter when South Carolina seceded, let the workmen who were constructing Fort Sumter using Federal funds stay on the job.  It was only when Anderson moved his command from Moultrie, which was in no condition to be defended against a land attack, to Sumter that Pickens suddenly thought that the Federal government should have nothing to do with Sumter.  If Pickens had simply bothered to move a militia company into Sumter and evict the Federal workmen, there would have been no crisis over Fort Sumter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Prove its fake. And Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

     If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution. – Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Try a  more complete quote.

If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution — certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them.

And from later on in that same address:

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Leaving aside the issue of whether restricting slavery in the territories really was tyranny, what you saying is that the South was using the right of revolution, not a right of secession when it attempted to form a separate government.