The Civil War

[WillK]

It was more of the tarrifs imposed, the south had 20%of the population, but 80% of the tax burden

cite?

I don't know where to find it right now but I can back up that he is very close to correct.

If you ever can back it up, please do becuase I'd like to know how.
Otherwise, his statement sounds like complete crap.

[WillK]

First of all it wasnt cemetery hill, it was culps hill that Ewell didnt take, it commanded the town, and Lee was the reason the south lasted so long. He was the greatest commander ever. Tactics today are based on him, speed and mobility. And slavery didnt become an issueuntill the emacipation proclamation, and it only applied to states still in rebellion and they were not gonna give them. Lol so in essence "the great emancipator" didnt free one slave the 13th amendement did.

What?  Are you kidding?

No, he's correct. Prior to the emancipation proc the main goal of the US Govt and Military was to save the Union and end the war.

But the US Govt wasnt the only participant in the war. As an example, Mississippi had declared in January 1861 that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery", thus slavery was an issue from the beginning.

[WillK]

...  the EP didn't really free one slave, if you read the document the only slaves that were "freed" were done so in Confederate held territory, which at the time was a foreign nation and therefore the federal authorities had no powers to enforce the law. Slaves in MD, KY, MO, and DE, and CS states that were occupied by Union forces were left unaffected by the EP.

According to the federal government, the rebel states were not a foreign country so federal law was still considered to be applicable. 

In several areas the EP applied and the US had control at the time it took effect.  For example: Corinth, Mississippi; Huntsville, Alabama; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Helena, Arkansas; New Berne, North Carolina;  Hilton Head and Port Royal, South Carolina;  Alexandria and Winchester, Virginia.  Add all that up, and there was a lot of slaves freed immediately by the EP.

[WillK]

Documentation aside, it's actually very imaginable if you knew anything about economic theory.  Of course "burden" is to imply total deadweight loss.

I know quite a bit about economic theory yet I see nothing that explains the geographic distribution of tax burden that has been claimed.  Enlighten me if you can.

[WillK]

No the EP only applied to states still in rebellion it didnt apply to areas in union control or borders, and the states in rebellion were not going to give up there slaves,  the EP didnt free one slave the 13th amendment did.

My statement was exactly correct.  The EP applied to the locations I listed AND those locations were held by the US army at the time the EP was issued. 

[WillK]

Those slaves were not freed. The EP didnt free slaves under Union control.

you are wrong.
Try reading the EP and studying actual history.

[WillK]

The proclamation did not name the slave-holding border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession, and so it did not free any slaves there. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it also was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation.

Nice cut and pate job from Wikipedia.  

Did you get to the part which says "Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).  In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves were freed at once on January 1, 1863."

[WillK]

So what did started the Civil War? Tariffs. Taxation, without representation.
South Carolina had already foiled the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" and had vowed to leave the Union if the Senate passed the 1861 Morrill tariff.
The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent. The slap in the face was that 80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South and revenues were mostly going to the Northern industries.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
What this meant was, the South could not sell their goods to other countries at a world price.

If you doubt any of this, research for yourself. Go to books that were printed in the late 1800's

I have researched it myself and find that what you wrote is not supported by the evidence.

Take a look at what the leaders of South Carolina said were their reasons for secession:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Anything about tarrifs in that?  nope.
Anything about slavery in that?  Yes.

Lets look at Lincoln's first inaugural address: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
The only mention of tarrifs is in a list of activities that he is responsible for as president. Nothing shocking in a president stating that he will do what his oath of office says he is supposed to do.
 Does the inaugural address  say slavery has anything to do with the situation?  Yes, in fact he said slavery "is the only substantial dispute".

Where does the claim that "80% of the import tariffs were being paid by the South" come from? This is a great mystery to me. 

[WillK]

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.

But why was there a rebellion in the first place?

Answer: slavery.

[WillK]

"I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government"? "And, what then will become of my tariff"?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

This is a totally made up quote.  You have been suckered.

[WillK]

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.

But why was there a rebellion in the first place?

Answer: slavery.

The reason why Fort Sumter was fired on was due to the fact that the US Military would not leave the property of the Confederate govt.

It was not property of the Confederate govt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shocking ignorance of the constitution.  Article 1, Section 8, 17th clause clearly gives the federal government the power to purchase and own property.  It was by this constitutional provision that the Federal government owned Sumter.   

The exact same clause appeared in the Confederate Constitution -- the Confederate government had not purchased Sumter.

[WillK]

So the property that is now federal parks and military bases were purchased from the states?

No, and thats not what the Constitution says.

The Constitution says that the state legislature must give its consent for the feds to purchase land in that state. 

[WillK]

And if that state secedes?

If such a thing could occur,  what of it?  Does secession nullify property titles?

[WillK]

heres ya a few more
Charles Dickens views on the subject:

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.

Karl Marx seconded this view:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

So instead of believing what the Americans who were actually involved said, you will turn to European journalists, including Marx?

[WillK]

Well you seem to want to ignore the quotes I give you from Jeff Davis, and even Abe Lincoln.

I have no problem with Davis and Lincoln quotes (I do object to fake Lincoln quotes).

I quoted Lincoln myself earlier in this thread.  

And Davis was apparently a great speech maker, pleasing the home crowds:  "Rather than see the Executive chair of the nation filled by a sworn enemy of our rights, he would shatter it into a thousand fragments before he had an opportunity of taking his seat. The Government is at an end the very moment that an abolitionist is elected to the Presidency."
-- The Daily Mississipian reporting Davis's speech in Vicksburg, November 27, 1858.

[WillK]

The idea of states' rights dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who himself drew on the "social contract" theories of the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Jefferson maintained that the United States was formed through a social contract between the individual states rather than the people as a whole. In other words, because these states had united voluntarily to form a union—in Jefferson's language, a "compact"—the U.S. government derived its power only from them. This understanding of American government soon found expression in the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, the Ninth and Tenth amendments were ratified, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

The Constitution does not express the understanding you describe.  The Constitution starts "We the People", not "we the States".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to those who led the secession movement it had everything to do with slavery.  Several of the rebel states published Declarations of Causes:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[WillK]

The idea of states' rights dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who himself drew on the "social contract" theories of the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). Jefferson maintained that the United States was formed through a social contract between the individual states rather than the people as a whole. In other words, because these states had united voluntarily to form a union—in Jefferson's language, a "compact"—the U.S. government derived its power only from them. This understanding of American government soon found expression in the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, the Ninth and Tenth amendments were ratified, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states and/or the people.

The Constitution does not express the understanding you describe.  The Constitution starts "We the People", not "we the States".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to those who led the secession movement it had everything to do with slavery.  Several of the rebel states published Declarations of Causes:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I am sorry I guess you have never read the tenth amendment the states and the people are the same thing, and it sure doesnt start off saying "We the Federal Goverment"

I have read it.  The States and the People are not the same thing.  The 10th clearly refers to them as two different things. 

[WillK]

The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTFULLY, OR TO  THE PEOPLE.

Then I would suggest you read it again you obviously missed the last part, its the same thing.

I didn't miss anything.  "The States ... OR  ... The People"  Two things, separated by the word OR. 
The 9th Amendment does not mention the States at all.