beachmaster73.. slavery issue
sir after watching you argue your opinion of southern people, i have to inform you that you have been decieved by your northern history books. the yoke of slavery has never been broke and instead has been incurred upon us all. southern thinking has always been the same...you don't work, you dont eat.the north fought a war of agression when southern states refused to pay unconstitutional taxes levied on them.slavry was not an issue until lincoln made it so he could gain popular opinion and backing for his cause. fact is now were all enslaved to the unfair tax system your forefathers fought for. hope you like paying them. the sad part is that we fought the revolutionary war to keep from paying them to great britain, only to pay them to another form of tyrant.
1. When did the Federal income tax on personal income begin?
The Federal income tax on personal income began during the Civil War in 1861 during Abraham Lincoln's administration. It violated the Constitution and was struck down at war's end.
2. What percent in Federal tax revenue did Confederate states account for just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War (circa 1860)?
The Confederate states made up 87% of the tax revenue of the Federal treasury in 1860.
3. What was the primary form Federal taxes assumed just prior to the Civil War?
Before the War broke out Federal taxes were mostly in the form of excise taxes and tariffs (import taxes). Tariffs provided most of the Federal revenue in the form of taxes.
4. Why did Northern states use import taxes during the Civil War?
Northern states used import taxes as a way to protect their own manufacturers against Great Britain and other overseas competition. Northern imports brought in very little taxes for the government.
5. How did import taxes impact the South during the Civil War?
Unlike the North, the Southern states' primary staple was King Cotton. The South depended heavily upon exporting cotton to overseas markets. Unlike the North, the South was an export-oriented economy. Thus import taxes on Southern cotton contributed greatly to the Federal tax revenue.
6. Since the North could not depend on revenues brought in from exported goods (i.e., cotton), how did the North generate revenue internally?
The North resorted to taxing it's citizenry on such items as tobacco, alcohol, clothing, food stuffs, stamps, tools and even entertainment. The newly created Department of Internal Revenue collected the taxes. Personal evasion of taxes was a common problem for the DIR.
"Only a strong central government - a government that was a major player in the national economy, a government that dominated the states and localities, a government that was capable of reaching into every city and town and compelling individual citizens to do its bidding - could marshal and wield those resources." Stevens, p. 106.
7. What percent did taxes cover for the Civil War expenses of the North?
Taxes paid for roughly one-fifth of the North's daily war efforts.
8. Where did the rest (i.e., four-fifths) of the money come from for the North?
It came from such forms as the creation of paper money, bonds and borrowing, This led to rampant inflation for the Northern economy due to an excessive proliferation of money.
9. How much did inflation affect the North from 1861-1865?
During the Civil War the cost of goods and services increased by 80% for the Northern states.
10. How much did inflation affect the South from 1861-1865?
During the Civil War the cost of goods and services increased by 60-70 times for the Southern states.
11. How much did it cost the North to wage Civil War on a daily basis?
About $1.75 million dollars was needed every day by the North to conduct its affairs on the military front, according to Anderson. Stevens says it was costing the North $2.5 million a day by the spring of 1863 (p. 106).
12. Prior to the changes in 1863 in bank charters, what kind of money or currency was in circulation in the United States?
There were many different forms of money in circulation prior to 1863, including private bank notes, government-minted gold and silver coins, Spanish dollars, and even private coins. There were as many as 1,500 different institutions issuing private bank notes. Private notes undermined the value of the Federal currency. They were printed in a variety of sizes, styles and denominations, thus making even simple transaction difficult to execute.
13. What did the Legal Tender Act of 1862 accomplish?
The Legal Tender Act of 1862 effectively outlawed privately minted gold and silver coins, and authorized the Federal Government to issue paper currency. It was printed with green ink on the back and thus became known as greenbacks. They were unbacked by gold and silver.
The government issued $500 million worth of bank notes during the war. By the end of the war, inflation having taken its toll, these same bank notes decreased in value by 61%.
Senate Finance Committee chairman John Sherman said, The policy of this country ought to be to make everything national as far as possible; to nationalize our country so that we shall love our country. If we are dependent on the United States for currency and a medium of exchange, we shall have a broader and more generous nationality. Stevens, p. 107.
14. What was the National Banking Act of 1863 and what did it accomplish?
The National Banking Act (passed February 25, 1863) had two primary objectives; (1) raise money to pay for the War, (2) revamp the nation's convoluted currency system. A uniform national currency and a dependable market for government bonds were sorely needed. The Banking Act provided for them. - Stevens, p. 106.
The National Banking Act made it possible for five or more persons to form a bank as long as they had a minimum of $50,000 dollars in capital, though it was $100,000 in some large cities. A Federal charter was granted if the institution purchased U.S. bonds equaling one-third of the amount of capital laid down to establish the bank. In return the Treasury would engrave the money for them, called National Bank Certificates. These National Bank Certificates were equal to 90% of the market value of their bonds. The banks would then use this money to transact their business (i.e., making loans). Banks would profit off these commercial loans and the owners would pocket the profits.
Banks also received interest payments in the form of gold from bonds they bought from the government. This was an enticement to state-chartered banks to file for a Federal charter and to stop using private currency.
15. How did the government use bonds to finance the Civil War?
At the beginning of 1863 the government relied heavily upon the sale of "five twenties" (six percent bonds, callable in five years and maturing in twenty). However, the demand for war bonds was unpredictable. They would rise and fall based on the military successes of failures of the North.
The government issued five kinds of paper currency during the war. For more information on the kinds of paper currency the North printed during the war see: http://www.financialhistory.org/civilwar/1861-1865/north/currency.htm
16. What were the first coins minted with the motto "In God we Trust" on them?
The Union 2-Cent pieces were the first U.S. coins minted with the motto, In God we Trust. These coins were bronze and were available from 1864-1865 during the war and actually up to 1873 after the war. They depict images of a shield, and eagle and a laurel sprig.
17. How were stamps used as "currency" during the Civil War?
Due to short supply of coins in the North, the government issued un-gummed stamps that could also be used as coinage. See a .25 stamp.
18. Why did the Federal government stop minting coins after the Civil War began?
Facing a probable long war, the North decided to stop issuing coins and turned too printing paper money (i.e., greenbacks). As a result, many northerners panicked and started hoarding coins. Before long, most coins were no longer in circulation.
19. How did the Government respond to the crisis of coins being hoarded?
In response to the crisis, the Federal government issued fractional paper currency in denominations of 3, 5, 10, 15, 25, and 50 cents. These became known as shinplasters. People did eventually accept them as substitutes for metal coinage. The government stopped issuing fraction currency in 1876. By then $368 million worth of it made it into the private sector.
20. Did the South use similar means, as the North to finance the war effort (e.g., bonds, taxes and loans)?
In contrast with the North, the South primarily depended on paper currency to finance the war. As a result, inflation impacted the South even more since this currency was not backed by silver or gold. Currency was printed from 1861-1864. In 1861, when Confederate currency was first printed, it was worth 95 cents on the U.S. dollar. By 1863 they were trading at just 33 cents on the dollar. By April 9, 1965, at the war's end, a Confederate dollar traded at just 1.6 cents on the dollar. On May 1, 1865 Confederate dollar bills were sold in bales of 1,200 notes for just $1 U.S. dollar.
21. How much currency was printed by the Southern government?
More than $1 billion was in circulation during the Civil War. Unfortunately, as much as $1.5 billion was printed in counterfeit Confederate currency. The North encouraged and promoted the counterfeiting of Confederate currency since it devalued the value of it.
22. What are some examples of paper denominational amounts that were printed by the South?
Confederate banknotes were printed in blue-gray color and became known as bluebacks. They were available in the following denominations: 5 cent note, 10 cent note, 15 cent note, 25 cent note, 50 cent note, $1 note, $1.75 note, $2 note, $3 note, $5 note, $10 note, $20 note, $50 note and $100 notes. $10 notes were the most widely printed note.
23. Were coins minted by the Confederacy?
Yes, coins were minted by the Confederacy but they were very rare, Experimental pennies (copper or silver, 1861) and half-dollars (silver, 1861) were minted by the South. Examples: .1 cent coin, .50 cent coin, $5 dollar coin.
24. What are some examples of paper denomination amounts that were printed by the Federal Government?
3 cent note, 5 cent note, 10 cent note, 25 cent note, $1 dollar note, $1, $2 dollar note, $5 dollar note, $10 dollar note, $50 dollar note
25. What kind of scenes did the South depict slaves on their printed currency?
Among the myriad of scenes depicting slave labor we find the following categories of images on printed currency: Individuals With Cotton Individuals With Assorted Tasks, Field Scenes Stylistic Scenes, Post Civil War Scenes, Sugar Plantations and Transportation. For more information see "Beyond Face Value" on the Web.
1. When did the Federal income tax on personal income begin?
The Federal income tax on personal income began during the Civil War in 1861 during Abraham Lincoln's administration. It violated the Constitution and was struck down at war's end.
2. What percent in Federal tax revenue did Confederate states account for just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War (circa 1860)?
The Confederate states made up 87% of the tax revenue of the Federal treasury in 1860.
3. What was the primary form Federal taxes assumed just prior to the Civil War?
Before the War broke out Federal taxes were mostly in the form of excise taxes and tariffs (import taxes). Tariffs provided most of the Federal revenue in the form of taxes.
4. Why did Northern states use import taxes during the Civil War?
Northern states used import taxes as a way to protect their own manufacturers against Great Britain and other overseas competition. Northern imports brought in very little taxes for the government.
5. How did import taxes impact the South during the Civil War?
Unlike the North, the Southern states' primary staple was King Cotton. The South depended heavily upon exporting cotton to overseas markets. Unlike the North, the South was an export-oriented economy. Thus import taxes on Southern cotton contributed greatly to the Federal tax revenue.
6. Since the North could not depend on revenues brought in from exported goods (i.e., cotton), how did the North generate revenue internally?
The North resorted to taxing it's citizenry on such items as tobacco, alcohol, clothing, food stuffs, stamps, tools and even entertainment. The newly created Department of Internal Revenue collected the taxes. Personal evasion of taxes was a common problem for the DIR.
"Only a strong central government - a government that was a major player in the national economy, a government that dominated the states and localities, a government that was capable of reaching into every city and town and compelling individual citizens to do its bidding - could marshal and wield those resources." Stevens, p. 106.
7. What percent did taxes cover for the Civil War expenses of the North?
Taxes paid for roughly one-fifth of the North's daily war efforts.
8. Where did the rest (i.e., four-fifths) of the money come from for the North?
It came from such forms as the creation of paper money, bonds and borrowing, This led to rampant inflation for the Northern economy due to an excessive proliferation of money.
9. How much did inflation affect the North from 1861-1865?
During the Civil War the cost of goods and services increased by 80% for the Northern states.
10. How much did inflation affect the South from 1861-1865?
During the Civil War the cost of goods and services increased by 60-70 times for the Southern states.
11. How much did it cost the North to wage Civil War on a daily basis?
About $1.75 million dollars was needed every day by the North to conduct its affairs on the military front, according to Anderson. Stevens says it was costing the North $2.5 million a day by the spring of 1863 (p. 106).
12. Prior to the changes in 1863 in bank charters, what kind of money or currency was in circulation in the United States?
There were many different forms of money in circulation prior to 1863, including private bank notes, government-minted gold and silver coins, Spanish dollars, and even private coins. There were as many as 1,500 different institutions issuing private bank notes. Private notes undermined the value of the Federal currency. They were printed in a variety of sizes, styles and denominations, thus making even simple transaction difficult to execute.
13. What did the Legal Tender Act of 1862 accomplish?
The Legal Tender Act of 1862 effectively outlawed privately minted gold and silver coins, and authorized the Federal Government to issue paper currency. It was printed with green ink on the back and thus became known as greenbacks. They were unbacked by gold and silver.
The government issued $500 million worth of bank notes during the war. By the end of the war, inflation having taken its toll, these same bank notes decreased in value by 61%.
Senate Finance Committee chairman John Sherman said, The policy of this country ought to be to make everything national as far as possible; to nationalize our country so that we shall love our country. If we are dependent on the United States for currency and a medium of exchange, we shall have a broader and more generous nationality. Stevens, p. 107.
14. What was the National Banking Act of 1863 and what did it accomplish?
The National Banking Act (passed February 25, 1863) had two primary objectives; (1) raise money to pay for the War, (2) revamp the nation's convoluted currency system. A uniform national currency and a dependable market for government bonds were sorely needed. The Banking Act provided for them. - Stevens, p. 106.
The National Banking Act made it possible for five or more persons to form a bank as long as they had a minimum of $50,000 dollars in capital, though it was $100,000 in some large cities. A Federal charter was granted if the institution purchased U.S. bonds equaling one-third of the amount of capital laid down to establish the bank. In return the Treasury would engrave the money for them, called National Bank Certificates. These National Bank Certificates were equal to 90% of the market value of their bonds. The banks would then use this money to transact their business (i.e., making loans). Banks would profit off these commercial loans and the owners would pocket the profits.
Banks also received interest payments in the form of gold from bonds they bought from the government. This was an enticement to state-chartered banks to file for a Federal charter and to stop using private currency.
15. How did the government use bonds to finance the Civil War?
At the beginning of 1863 the government relied heavily upon the sale of "five twenties" (six percent bonds, callable in five years and maturing in twenty). However, the demand for war bonds was unpredictable. They would rise and fall based on the military successes of failures of the North.
The government issued five kinds of paper currency during the war. For more information on the kinds of paper currency the North printed during the war see: http://www.financialhistory.org/civilwar/1861-1865/north/currency.htm
16. What were the first coins minted with the motto "In God we Trust" on them?
The Union 2-Cent pieces were the first U.S. coins minted with the motto, In God we Trust. These coins were bronze and were available from 1864-1865 during the war and actually up to 1873 after the war. They depict images of a shield, and eagle and a laurel sprig.
17. How were stamps used as "currency" during the Civil War?
Due to short supply of coins in the North, the government issued un-gummed stamps that could also be used as coinage. See a .25 stamp.
18. Why did the Federal government stop minting coins after the Civil War began?
Facing a probable long war, the North decided to stop issuing coins and turned too printing paper money (i.e., greenbacks). As a result, many northerners panicked and started hoarding coins. Before long, most coins were no longer in circulation.
19. How did the Government respond to the crisis of coins being hoarded?
In response to the crisis, the Federal government issued fractional paper currency in denominations of 3, 5, 10, 15, 25, and 50 cents. These became known as shinplasters. People did eventually accept them as substitutes for metal coinage. The government stopped issuing fraction currency in 1876. By then $368 million worth of it made it into the private sector.
20. Did the South use similar means, as the North to finance the war effort (e.g., bonds, taxes and loans)?
In contrast with the North, the South primarily depended on paper currency to finance the war. As a result, inflation impacted the South even more since this currency was not backed by silver or gold. Currency was printed from 1861-1864. In 1861, when Confederate currency was first printed, it was worth 95 cents on the U.S. dollar. By 1863 they were trading at just 33 cents on the dollar. By April 9, 1965, at the war's end, a Confederate dollar traded at just 1.6 cents on the dollar. On May 1, 1865 Confederate dollar bills were sold in bales of 1,200 notes for just $1 U.S. dollar.
21. How much currency was printed by the Southern government?
More than $1 billion was in circulation during the Civil War. Unfortunately, as much as $1.5 billion was printed in counterfeit Confederate currency. The North encouraged and promoted the counterfeiting of Confederate currency since it devalued the value of it.
22. What are some examples of paper denominational amounts that were printed by the South?
Confederate banknotes were printed in blue-gray color and became known as bluebacks. They were available in the following denominations: 5 cent note, 10 cent note, 15 cent note, 25 cent note, 50 cent note, $1 note, $1.75 note, $2 note, $3 note, $5 note, $10 note, $20 note, $50 note and $100 notes. $10 notes were the most widely printed note.
23. Were coins minted by the Confederacy?
Yes, coins were minted by the Confederacy but they were very rare, Experimental pennies (copper or silver, 1861) and half-dollars (silver, 1861) were minted by the South. Examples: .1 cent coin, .50 cent coin, $5 dollar coin.
24. What are some examples of paper denomination amounts that were printed by the Federal Government?
3 cent note, 5 cent note, 10 cent note, 25 cent note, $1 dollar note, $1, $2 dollar note, $5 dollar note, $10 dollar note, $50 dollar note
25. What kind of scenes did the South depict slaves on their printed currency?
Among the myriad of scenes depicting slave labor we find the following categories of images on printed currency: Individuals With Cotton Individuals With Assorted Tasks, Field Scenes Stylistic Scenes, Post Civil War Scenes, Sugar Plantations and Transportation. For more information see "Beyond Face Value" on the Web.
0
-
This would be an interesting one to match up with the often posted (several times each year) cut and paste about how there were virtually no taxes at all 100 years ago. 0 -
it is true that a lot of history has been twisted....but:
no need to worry about the south. soon it will all be mexican, the northerners will have married all the southern women at their request to escape being hillbilly men slaves, and we'll all move back to new england and be happy. and because of global warming, it will be wonderful winter weather in dec.. with the north warmer, the south will be volcano sweating equator hot.
yep, mexicans will be at home and southerners will be proud of the h**l theyre still living in.[:o)][:p]
i figure i'll have enough to make up for what my great great great grandfather couldnt carry in his carpet in about 10 years. then its back to ice fishing and skating for me. nothing beats hiking in upstate new york, maine, and vermont, and not having to travel to get to it...just walk out the cabin.[:)]0 -
won't be no ice fishing or skating if it gets that hot, skeeters will for shure invade y'all and i reckon y'all dont have a clue as to what to eat and rub on your skin to keep them away. as far as the wimmin folk, they'll be back ,their heart will always be in dixie.[:D][:D][:D][;)] 0 -
lorne, here's a question for you since you seem to be well-informed on the subject. Assuming there had not been a war, how do you think the slavery issue would have been resolved? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by bobski
it is true that a lot of history has been twisted....but:
no need to worry about the south. soon it will all be mexican, the northerners will have married all the southern women at their request to escape being hillbilly men slaves, and we'll all move back to new england and be happy. and because of global warming, it will be wonderful winter weather in dec.. with the north warmer, the south will be volcano sweating equator hot.
yep, mexicans will be at home and southerners will be proud of the h**l theyre still living in.[:o)][:p]
i figure i'll have enough to make up for what my great great great grandfather couldnt carry in his carpet in about 10 years. then its back to ice fishing and skating for me. nothing beats hiking in upstate new york, maine, and vermont, and not having to travel to get to it...just walk out the cabin.[:)]
What a joke, but I can understand the self agrandizing flatter coming from a bagger's line. [8D]0 -
I suspect it would have died out in the south as it did in New York, New Jersey and the other northern states. Immigration and economic downturns produced a workforce where men, women and children would work for subsistence and shelter. These events devalued slaves who were expensive investments at $600-1,000 per plus maintenance to keep up their market value.
It's interesting to speculate where we'd be if the African slave trade never existed.0 -
Slavery was not an issue?
Um... then why was it that as states joined the Union in the years leading up to Civil War a negotiated agreement required that one slave state be added for each free state?
Why was it that Lincoln ran on an abolitionist platform, and his election sparked the secession?
Slavery was, in fact, the single greatest issue of the 1850s. Certainly there were other contributing factors dividing North and South, but it was slavery that drove the nation apart.0 -
It was not slavery but the stealing of slaves that caused the war.
The Northerners would not keep their word (Why does that not surprise anyone?) that they made in the Missouri compromise. They encouraged slave stealing & refused to return people's legitimate property when it was discovered in Northern states.
The tragedy is that Southerners were so trusting in the Damnyankees that they thought they were as honorable as they were. The South should have seceeded far earlier when the economic & population figures were not so unbalanced against them. Just a few years earlier would have made all the difference.0 -
How anyone can even begin to argue that slavery was not an issue is completely beyond me. Have you not studied "Bleeding Kansas", the Dred Scott decision, looked at the Wilmot Proviso excluding slavery from territories captured from Mexico, or studied the series of Compromises in 1820, 1833, & 1850 at all?
Here's James Buchanan's "State of the Union" address for 1860(date wrong in title). Please read the fourth paragraph, and then try to contend that slavery was not an issue until Lincoln made it into one. He deals with the issue of slavery and secession for most of the first part of his speech, and Lincoln wasn't even there yet. Get real. It was not the only issue, it may not have even been the main issue, but to argue that it was not an important issue is just plain silly - ask John Brown.
http://www.geocities.com/presidentialspeeches/1860.htm?200715
If slavery was not an issue until Lincoln made it one out of desperation during the war, please explain the "Cornerstone Speech" given by Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy several weeks before the firing upon Fort Sumter. Here is an excerpt that seems to refute that concept quite well.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
I have seen copies of that article on "25 Things to Know" so many times it has become ridiculous that it is still around and quoted. It has just enough elements of reality to attempt to lend it some credibility, but the salient points it tries to make are virtually all based on totally incorrect statements, or distortions of facts designed to advance an agenda.
The easiest ones to disprove are the statements relative to the import taxes on cotton and the history of the income tax passed in 1861.
Cotton was an exported item, not an imported one, and export taxes are specifically prohibited in the Constitution. This was done at the insistence of Southern delegates at the time the Constitution was being written and was covered in the "Commerce Compromise" which allowed taxes on imports, but not on exports.
Don't even try to use the idea that cotton was imported from the South by the North since that is covered under Interstate Commerce laws as opposed to Intrastate Commerce, which was left to the states. The reason was because of taxes imposed on products imported by states from each other under the old Articles of Confederation and it was realized that this was a prescription for disaster and was prohibited, and still is today. The "Tariff of Abominations" was real as an import tax problem, but it had been reduced to 19% and was not the only cause by any stretch of the imagination.
The income tax was not declared to be unconstitutional at that time, and a flat tax of three percent, that was later given two levels of progression (3% & 5%), was reduced at the end of the Civil War and allowed to lapse in 1872.
Much of the rest of this treatise is not much more accurate, and what is accurate is often not applicable as an argument. What do Union war loans have to do with war causes?
I lean strongly in the direction of State's Rights, and I think the historical precedent from New England at the Hartford Convention said the South likely had the legal right to secede, but don't try to rewrite historical reality just to change perception.[:)]0 -
Altough Darren got back last week, his Brother, Doug II, is still in Afghanistan.
D.0 -
Dave (DaveW) is in the middle of clearing Pensacola, leaving the Navy after Proud Service, to begin his civilian life in Texas.
I sure miss my Sons.
D.0 -
even after the emancipation proclamation the north still held slaves, as they had all through the war. even lincoln said if slavery were the issue he would not go to war but he could not tolerate a divided nation. most history books were wrote by conquerers as they still are. the whole truth never seems to come out, but what amazes me is the fact that a whole people was not even given the chance to elect whether to stay or go home. the fact stands that their own tribal cheifs sold or traded them to mostley dutch and british merchants who brought them here and sold them to slave traders thus these people were kidnapped and without given a chance had absolutely no way back. slavery of any kind is wrong but the fact remains it is still alive in the world today. look at the sweat shops in china, russia, africa, etc. etc. it is my opinion that the government uses this to work in their favor to outlaw things like the stars and bars, calling them racist when actually they are trying to cover up what they really stood for, the biggest being taxation without representation. sad indeed. 0 -
woodshermit i don't know. but i can tell you that around here the ex slaves were treated so well that they refused to leave master roberts plantation. they were each given land and remained loyal as sharecroppers and their desendants still live on the land to this day. i personally know most of the as we went to school together and i can say not a finer group of hard working folks will you find. and guess what,they have never let on to feel sorry for themselves and you have never heard singin until you've sat inside their church and listened to them. nor have you ever tasted vittles as good.[;)][;)][:D] 0 -
I love listening to civil war guys. That war was fought before your great great grandparents were born. NONE of you TRULY knows what really happened because you didn't live then. Why even bother arguing about it? 0 -
rennick because we never surrendered. the general had his fingers crossed[:D][:D][:D][:D][;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lorne47
even after the emancipation proclamation the north still held slaves, as they had all through the war. even lincoln said if slavery were the issue he would not go to war but he could not tolerate a divided nation. most history books were wrote by conquerers as they still are. the whole truth never seems to come out, but what amazes me is the fact that a whole people was not even given the chance to elect whether to stay or go home. the fact stands that their own tribal cheifs sold or traded them to mostley dutch and british merchants who brought them here and sold them to slave traders thus these people were kidnapped and without given a chance had absolutely no way back. slavery of any kind is wrong but the fact remains it is still alive in the world today. look at the sweat shops in china, russia, africa, etc. etc. it is my opinion that the government uses this to work in their favor to outlaw things like the stars and bars, calling them racist when actually they are trying to cover up what they really stood for, the biggest being taxation without representation. sad indeed.
Really? Which Southern state was it that had no Representatives or Senators in Congress? Count how many of the Presidents had been from the South. Getting outvoted is not the same thing as not getting to vote.[:)]0 -
I'm not sure for certain when Doug II will be home, but I sure hope all my Sons are finished with war. It has been a long worrisome time.
D.0 -
Whether or not slavery was an issue is not really important. The South and North disagreed on how to settle it.
THEREFORE THE SOUTH WANTED TO SECEED FROM THE UNION.
Having no legal device by which a state could seceed (the Constitution makes no mention of it), the North, under Lincoln, waged aggressive war to bring the Southern states under Federal control thus disregarding their sovreign rights.0 -
The weather here today was pretty spectacular - mid 60s, bright sunshine and blue skies. It's supposed to rain over the weekend, but I really think(hope) that winter is behind us.
D.0 -
doug thank your sons for serving, i wish them well. 0 -
... actually, the demise of bees can perhaps be accounted for by genetically
designed plants that have an insecticide gene inserted into them.[8D]0 -
Appreciate it.
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Whether or not slavery was an issue is not really important. The South and North disagreed on how to settle it.
THEREFORE THE SOUTH WANTED TO SECEED FROM THE UNION.
Having no legal device by which a state could seceed (the Constitution makes no mention of it), the North, under Lincoln, waged aggressive war to bring the Southern states under Federal control thus disregarding their sovreign rights.
The Constitution does not mention it but the Articles of Confederation did. Since many of the same people were involved in writing both documents it should be obvious that the failure to include a provision prohibiting secession means that it is legal.
Note also that all powers & actions not prohibited to the states
are reserved to them. Like the Damnyankees cared anything about the Constitution since they also saw fit to deprive the people of their personal property without due process or any compensation.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
23 comments